Sears v. City of Akron
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brandeis
Akron, Ohio, lies on Little Cuyahoga River á short distance above its confluence with the Big Cuyahoga. In May, 1911, the legislature of'Ohio granted to the city, by special act “the right to divert and use forever” for the purposes of its water supply “the Tuscarawas river, the big Cuyahoga and little Cuyahoga rivers, and the tributaries thereto, now wholly or partly owned or controlled by the state.” 1 The city already possessed, under the general laws of Ohio, power to appropriate for this purpose, by condemnation proceedings, the property of any private corporation. 2 Acting specifically…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Shoemaker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Hamilton Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Hamilton CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. PowelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. CarmackSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of ProvidenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Bragg v. WeaverSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Cincinnati v. VesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.