Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Clancy v. Columbia Irrigation District

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 1922No. 16493PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHovey, J.

As all parties are appealing, we will continue to refer to them as plaintiffs and defendants, respectively. The plaintiffs are the owners of bonds issued by the defendant irrigation district, which is situate in Stevens county, and of which county the *81other defendants hold the several positions of commissioners and treasurer.

Columbia Irrigation District was organized some time prior to June 1, 1912, and issued bonds bearing that date in the total amount of $55,000. The law relating to a corporation of this class will be found in §§ 6416 to 6512, Rem. Code,1 and the bonds were issued under the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. East St. Louis v. AmySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
  4. Interstate Trust Co. v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  5. Board of Directors v. PetersonWashington Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State Ex Rel. Malott v. Board of County CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Klemm v. DavenportSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
  4. Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Columbia Irrigation District v. Benton CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1928

34 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