Legal Opinion

Clem v. City of Yankton

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1968No. File 10511PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RENTTO, Judge.

The plaintiff a resident and taxpayer of the defendant city in this proceeding seeks a judgment declaring that Ch. 148, Laws of 1964, which authorizes our cities to issue revenue bonds to acquire, equip and rent facilities to promote the economic welfare of our state, is unconstitutional. He further requests that the action of the city taken thereunder relative to a contract with Morgen Manufacturing Company be declared illegal and its officers and agents enjoined from doing anything more therewith until this litigation is determined.

*392The facts on which the cause was submitted to…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Green v. FrazierSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. City of Gaylord v. Gaylord City ClerkMichigan Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Green v. City of Mt. PleasantSupreme Court of Iowa · 1964
  4. Boe v. FossSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Village of Deming v. Hosdreg CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1956

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La PlanteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Hartpence v. Youth Forestry CampSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Meyerink v. Northwestern Public Service Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Independent Community Bankers Ass'n of South Dakota v. State Ex Rel. MeierhenrySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  5. McFarland v. BarronSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969

48 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