Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Sioux Falls Serum Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1923No. File No. 5252PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGates, J.

This cause was before us upon a former appeal. 44 S. D. 421, 184 N. W. 252. Reference is made to that opinion. Upon retrial the jury again found for the plaintiff. From the judgment and order denying new trial, defendant appeals,

The action is for damages for the death of plaintiff’s hogs from malignant edbma, alleged to have been caused by anti-hog-cholera serum manufactured by defendant. The evidence' showed that the veterinarian who administered the serum purchased it from1 defendant, of three serials, viz., A247, Bio, and B12. Plaintiff’s hogs, were treated in three pastures. It was in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Richmire v. Andrews & Gale Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Richards v. H. K. Mulford Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
  3. Brown v. H. K. Mulford Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1917
  4. Hollingsworth v. Midwest Serum Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1917
  5. Murphy v. Sioux Falls Serum Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Brown v. Globe Laboratories, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Green v. RALSTON PURNIA COMPANYSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
  3. Pearson v. Franklin Laboratories, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Lohr v. WatsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Erickson v. WebberSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931

4 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