# Walz v. City of Hudson

> South Dakota Supreme Court · December 15, 1982 · 327 N.W.2d 120

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670969

## Case

- **Full name:** Lela WALZ, Special Administrator of the Estate of Guy William Ludwig, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF HUDSON, South Dakota, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Appellee
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 15, 1982
- **Citations:** 327 N.W.2d 120; 1982 S.D. LEXIS 425
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Morgan
- **Judges:** Fosheim, Dunn, Henderson, Wollman, Morgan
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated by Wegleitner v. Sattler, 1998 S.D. LEXIS 90 (1998).
- Negative treatments: 5
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670969

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that cause of action exists for injured persons against liquor licensees pursuant to SDCL 35-4-78

## Opinion text

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I read this decision to overrule Griffin v. Sebeck. We are in effect adopting the dissenting view therein on the applicability of SDCL 35-4-78(2), and applying it to these facts. How in the world can the author then say “we did not fully reach Justice Dunn’s interpretation of SDCL 35-4-78(2)”? Granted, while that view was not adopted by the majority in Griffin, its mention implies it was considered.
I am not loath to fly in the face of stare decisis and overrule a bad decision or one that is outdated. For all the reasons stated by the author and by Justice Wollman in his special concurrence, I believe that Griffin was both bad law and is now outmoded and I concur in overruling it.
Since we are overruling our previous decision, I cannot agree with the author’s attempt to dance around addressing prospective or retrospective application. I agree with Justice Wollman’s disposition to “apply the benefits of the decision only to the plaintiff herein and to those causes of action accruing on and after the date of the remittitur in this case.” (citation omitted)
I agree with the disposition of the issue regarding SDCL 9-24-2 as expressed in the opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670969. Public record. Not legal advice.