Legal Opinion
Smith v. Hurlburt
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided July 31, 1923PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
It is first contended by plaintiffs that the notice of election for the organization of the district was too indefinite to give the County Court jurisdiction to declare the water district organized.
On August 23, 1919, a petition was filed with the county clerk containing the names of 101 legal voters of the proposed district duly signed, and praying that an election be called for the purpose of organizing the territory therein described under Chapter 346, General Laws of Oregon of 1917, as a district for the purpose of providing a supply of water for domestic purposes for its inhabitants to…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Davidson v. New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Stuart v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- McMillen v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Paulsen v. PortlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Board of Directors of Northern Wasco County People's Utility District v. KellyOregon Supreme Court · 1943
- United States v. AhoDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1944
- Witham v. McNuttOregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Hamilton v. RudeenOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- In Re Board of Directors of Tillamook People's Utility DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.