Legal Opinion
Sanitary District v. . Prudden
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 6, 1928PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.
Although the agreed statement of facts is rather prolix, an analysis presents practically only two material questions:
The first material question: Is chapter 229, Private Laws 1927, a local, private or special act in violation of section 29, Article II, Constitution North Carolina, and therefore void? We think so.
Private Laws 1927, chap. 29, the caption is: “An act to create in Henderson County a special sanitary and maintenance district to be known as the Druid Hills Sanitary and Maintenance District.”
Section 1 designates the particular locality or territory, by metes and bounds. Section 5,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Palmer v. StumphIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
- O'Hara v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Rouse v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Board of Trustees of the Fairmont Graded School District v. Mutual Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Day v. Commissioners of Yadkin CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- State v. . BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Glenn v. . Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- City of Raleigh v. FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Armstrong v. McInnisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.