Legal Opinion

McCollam v. Cahill

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 2009No. 24895PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEIERHENRY, Justice.

[¶ 1.] Kelly and Michelle McCollam entered into a contract for deed with Neil Cahill to purchase Cahill’s property on the outskirts of Mobridge, South Dakota. McCollams sued Cahill for equitable rescission based on Cahill’s failure to disclose the presence of snakes in and around the house. Cahill counter-sued for specific performance of the contract for deed. The trial court granted Cahill’s request for specific performance. McCollams appeal.

[¶2.] McCollams contend that rescission should have been granted based on fraud- or failure of consideration. 1 McCol-lams claim…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of DokkenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. CicmanecSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Vander Heide v. Boke Ranch, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Shedd v. LambSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Talley v. TalleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. O'neill v. O'neillSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Hiller v. HillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Johnson v. SellersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Evens v. EvensSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Biegler v. KraftDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2013

8 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