From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

JOHN A. CARLSON, INC. v. S.D. ST. HIGHWAY COMM., ET AL

Supreme Court of South Dakota
Dec 12, 1972
202 N.W.2d 867 (S.D. 1972)

Opinion

File No. 11043.

Opinion filed December 12, 1972 Order denying petition for rehearing 1-17-73

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hughes County; Hon. Robert A. Miller, Judge.

Tidball, Blando Kemnitz and Donald A. Haggar, Pierre, for plaintiff and appellant.

Carl W. Quist, Highway Asst. Atty. Gen., and Larry M. Von Wald, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for defendants and respondents.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This is an action for damages for breach of a contract entered into by plaintiff and the South Dakota State Highway Commission for the production of a gravel stockpile for use on U.S. Highway 281 in Spink County. The claimed damages in the amount of $84,874.00 are all in excess of and in addition to the contract price of the work agreed to be performed.

Plaintiff has appealed from an order dismissing its action. The issues involve the meaning and effect of SDCL 31-2-34 to 31-2-39 inclusive as limited by Sections 8 and 9, Article XI of the South Dakota Constitution. The same issues were recently considered by this court in the case of G.H. Lindekugel Sons, Inc. v. South Dakota State Highway Commission et al., 87 S.D. 32, 202 N.W.2d 125 (1972), and were all determined adversely to plaintiff's contentions and claims herein.

Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.

BIEGELMEIER and WINANS, JJ., concur.

WOLLMAN and DOYLE, JJ., dissent.


Summaries of

JOHN A. CARLSON, INC. v. S.D. ST. HIGHWAY COMM., ET AL

Supreme Court of South Dakota
Dec 12, 1972
202 N.W.2d 867 (S.D. 1972)
Case details for

JOHN A. CARLSON, INC. v. S.D. ST. HIGHWAY COMM., ET AL

Case Details

Full title:JOHN A. CARLSON, INC., Appellant v. S.D. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of South Dakota

Date published: Dec 12, 1972

Citations

202 N.W.2d 867 (S.D. 1972)
202 N.W.2d 867

Citing Cases

South Dakota Automobile Club, Inc. v. Volk

They do not come within the cited clause or limitation of expenditures in Article XI, § 8. That decision was…