Legal Opinion
City of Richmond v. Carneal
Supreme Court of Virginia
Decided March 17, 1921PublishedCited by 32 opinions
Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Richmond on a petition to condemn land. Judgment for defendants. Petitioner assigns error.
1Opinion of the CourtBurks, J.
The chief point involved in this case is the constitutionality of an act of Assembly approved February 29, 1916, amending a previous act, relating to the opening and widening of streets by cities and towns. Acts 1916, pp. 112, 113. So much of the act as need be quoted is as follows:
*390“Any city or town in this Commonwealth proposing to open or widen a street by taking any part of a block or square in such a manner that the value of the property abutting the proposed street would be injuriously affected unless the property on such block or square is replatted and the property line readjusted,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde ParkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Ligare v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Fallsburg, &c. Co. v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Virginia · 1903
- State ex rel. Twin City Building & Investment Co. v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Salisbury Land & Improvement Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Peterson v. HaganWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Hunter v. Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Virginia · 1953
- Riden v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1943
- Selle v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1922
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.