Legal Opinion
Hoiten v. City of Canistota
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided May 13, 1998No. NonePublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMUNDSON, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Contractor sued city of Canistota (City) to recover money claimed to be due for services rendered at the city landfill. At the conclusion of the contractor’s case during the trial to the court, City’s motion for a directed verdict was granted based on the failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements of the State of South Dakota. Contractor appeals, asserting there was a valid contract pursuant to an existing bid that was subsequently verbally modified. We affirm.
FACTS
[¶2.] Merle Hoiten, Jr. (Hoiten) and his father are equal partners in Hoiten…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Matter of Estate of JetterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Horrabin Paving Co. v. City of CrestonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935
- Bak v. Jones CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973
- Wefel v. Harold J. Westin & Associates, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
- Sioux Falls Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bozied v. City of BrookingsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- C & W Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- City of Aberdeen v. RichSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Bozied v. City of BrookingsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Bozied v. City of BrookingsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.