Legal Opinion

Roe v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1932No. Civil No. 3298PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

The object of this snit is to test the legality of the action of the district’s officers in accepting tax anticipation warrants from the purchasers thereof, or their assigns, in payment of their district taxes.

The plaintiff is the owner and holder of one of 2,200 $1,000 bonds of the district upon which the interest is delinquent for the two fiscal years of 1931 and 1932. He- claims that the practice pursued by the officers of the district in accepting tax anticipation warrants, issued and sold for the purpose of operation and maintenance, for district taxes levied and assessed for specific…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Oneida County v. TibbitsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Shelley v. St. Charles County CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1884
  3. Weidler v. Arizona Power Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Bummel v. Mayor, Aldermen & Inhabitants of HoustonTexas Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Wyman v. SearleNebraska Supreme Court · 1910

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Friedemann v. KirkCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
  2. Maloney v. MooreArizona Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Martinez v. Ciuffetelli, No. 292068 (Feb. 8, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API