Legal Opinion · Dissent

Long v. State of S.D.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 2017No. 27368Published

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶60.] I respectfully dissent. The State’s construction of Highway 11 in 1949 is not a proximate cause of Landowners’ loss in 2010 because such loss was not the natural and probable consequence of the construction of Highway 11. And if it was the natural and probable consequence, then such loss was already within the scope of the State’s right to construct Highway 11. That aside, if the State is required to compensate Landowners, then under the facts of this case, the State necessarily has a permanent drainage easement. Finally, Landowners’ settlement with the City should have been deducted…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API