City of Denver v. Bayer
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from District Court of Arapahoe County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHelm, J.
Plaintiff below seeks to recover in this action for the obstruction of free ingress and egress to and from his lots, by means of the streets upon which they front, and for a depreciation in the. value of his property, caused by the construction and operation upon the street of the railroad mentioned in the pleadings.
Three questions are fairly presented for adjudication by the record before us:
First. Is the abutting lot owner in this state entitled to compensation when the adjoining street is occupied by an ordinary railroad, and his property is thereby injured? Second. If he is, did the city…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Transportation Co. v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Rigney v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Johnson v. City of ParkersburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- City of Elgin v. EatonIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Jordan v. City of BenwoodWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Denver City Irrigation & Water Co. v. MiddaughSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
- McPhee & McGinnity Co. v. Union Pac. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Denver Circle R. v. NestorSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
- Williams v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.