TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Lyons Independent Consolidated District No. 3 v. Anderson

STATE EX REL LYONS INDEPENDENT CONSOLIDATED DISTRICT NO. 3 v. ANDERSON

State ex rel. Lyons Indep. Consol. Dist. No. 3 v. Anderson, 172 N.W. 780 (S.D. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
South Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 3, 1919
Docket
No. File No. 4509
Citations
172 N.W. 78042 S.D. 231919 S.D. LEXIS 74
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Appeals — Error—No Appeal • Record or Brief — Successive Stipulations — Affirmance. Where notice of appeal was filed in December, 1918, followed by four filed stipulations for service and filing of appellant s briefs extending time to May 1, 1919, no appeal record on briefs having been filed, and no stipulation for further extension; order appealed from will he affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from Circuit Court,'Minnehaha County. Hon. Louis L. FluEGEr, Judge. Proceeding in mandamus by the State of South Dakota on the relation of Lyons Independent Consolidated District No. 3, a school corporation, against Josephine Anderson. From an order overruling demurrer to plaintiff’s alternative writ of mandamus, defendánt appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from an order overruling defendant’s demurrer to-plaintiff’s alternative -writ of mandamus made and entered November 4, 1918. Notice of appeal was.filed in this court December 17, 1918. Thereafter by four separate written stipulations filed in this court appellant’s time for serving and filing briefs was extended to May 1, 1919. No appeal record or briefs have been filed, and no stipulation for further extension, of time for serving briefs has been filed. Appellant is therefore in default.

The order of the trial court appealed from is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 219262026peak 1926 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Churchill & Alden Co. v. Ramsey208 N.W. 406 (S.D. 1926)
  2. Loveland v. Perriton207 N.W. 100 (S.D. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Churchill & Alden Co. v. Ramsey208 N.W. 406 (S.D. 1926)
  2. Loveland v. Perriton207 N.W. 100 (S.D. 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list