Legal Opinion

Springer v. Cahoy

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 2013No. 26583PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SEVERSON, Justice.

[¶ 1.] Dale Springer, Dorothy Springer, Roger Springer, and Daniel Springer (Springers) own a landlocked parcel of land and have brought suit claiming an implied easement over Andy Cahoy’s land. On June 24, 2011, the Third Circuit Court concluded that an easement implied from prior use existed. We disagreed, Springer v. Cahoy, 2012 S.D. 32, ¶ 11, 814 N.W.2d 131, 135, holding that “Springers failed to present clear and convincing evidence of an easement implied from prior use.” Id. We reversed and remanded. Id. On remand, Springers argued for a common law implied easement by…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wichelman v. MessnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  2. Blanton v. City of Pinellas ParkSupreme Court of Florida · 2004
  3. Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Cobb v. DaughertyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Matthews v. South Dakota Department of Social ServicesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Healy Ranch v. HealySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2022
  2. Fuoss v. Dahlke Family Limited PartnershipSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API