Legal Opinion

Habicht v. City of Wessington Springs

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1922No. File No. 5147PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGates, P. J.

As alleged in the complaint, this is an action to recover from defendant city damages to plaintiffs’ store building and merchandise, caused by a heavy, but not unprecedented, rain. The basis of "the alleged liability is the negligence of the city. At the beginning of the trial the city objected to- the introduction ’of testimlony for that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute-a cause of action. The objection was sustained, and a judgment was entered dismissing the action on its merits. Therefrom plaintiffs appeal.

The following facts, derived from the allegations of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Searle v. City of LeadSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Hume v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
  3. Whittaker v. City of DeadwoodSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Bailey v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1910

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nelson v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Deschner v. City of IpswichSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Shuck v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Brasel v. MyersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Brasel v. MyersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API