Legal Opinion

Houck v. Eastchester Public Utility District

District Court, D. Alaska

Decided May 19, 1952No. Nos. A-6690, A-6705PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOLTA; District Judge.

'The plaintiffs in the foregoing class actions; as residents and taxpayers, seek to enjoin the- collection of taxes levied on real and personal property and the sale thereof to satisfy the tax liens, and to obtain a refund of the taxes already paid, on the ground of invalidity of the levies.

The defendant public utility districts were organized under Sec. 49-2-1 et seq., A.C.L.A.1949. Sec; 49-2-21, as atñendéd by Chap. 21, S.L.A.1951, empowers such districts to construct, maintain and operate dams, reservoirs, powerhouses, power structures, transmission lines, waterworks,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. People ex rel. SelbyIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
  3. Cahill v. PerrineCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
  4. Indiana Truck Farm Co. v. Town of SchneiderIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920
  5. New Albany Woolen Mills v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Curtis Publishing Company v. Wallace Butts, Wallace Butts v. Curtis Publishing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
  2. In Re Mountain View Public Utility District No. 1Alaska Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Wood v. GrayAlaska Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Curtis Publishing Company v. Wallace Butts, Wallace Butts v. Curtis Publishing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API