Legal Opinion
Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Rude
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided August 13, 1927No. 7732PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN B. SANBORN, District Judge.
In this opinion, the defendants in error will be called plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs in error defendants, as in the court below. The facts out of which this controversy arose are these: The defendant drainage district, which comprises some 9,500 acres, desired to construct a system of drains to reduce the ground water level and thus prevent the accumulation of alkali near the surface of the lands. It employed an engineer, Mr. Kelly, to make the necessary surveys, prepare plans and specifications, forms for bids, instructions to bidders, and contracts. He was…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Midland Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Brawley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bauer & Cie v. O'DonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. JureySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Etting v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Claiborne-Reno Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Hensler v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Ozark Milling Company, Inc. A/K/A Ozark Milling, Inc. v. Allied Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
- James A. Jackson, Trading as Jim Jackson v. Sam Finley, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States ex rel. Reischel & CottrellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.