Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sherwood v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided June 19, 1970No. 27820Published

1DissentGodbold, Circuit Judge

(dissenting) :

I am unable to join my colleagues in their disposition of this case.

As one of the grounds for relief against a state court judgment of condemnation, the appellant administrator alleged that by eminent domain, and by deed under threat of eminent domain, the defendant Water Supply District acquired all land within a quarter of a mile of the perimeter of the reservoir created by it “with the exception of lands belonging to or were acquired [sic] by officers, employees and promoters of the defendant District, which were allowed to remain in their hands for private development,” so…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dino Iacaponi v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
  2. Guam Investment Company, Inc. v. Central Building, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
  3. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. BrownMississippi Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Florasynth Laboratories, Inc. v. GoldbergCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1951
  5. Scott v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1951

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

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

Powered by the Exa API