Legal Opinion

Bell v. Town of Pulaski

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 6, 1945PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Gbeen

The hill in this case attacked the constitutionality of Chapter 98 of the Private Acts of 1941. The chancellor held the Act valid with the exception of one section, but held complainant not adversely affected by that section. (Complainant has appealed.

The Act was one which enlarged the boundaries of Pulaski and we assume the complainant is the owner of land formerly outside the corporate limits but added thereto by the statute.

The title of the Act is as follows:

“An Act to be entitled: ‘An Act to amend Chapter 260 of the Private Acts of 1903 and the amendments thereto, the same being Chapter…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Malone v. WilliamsTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Southern Railway Co. v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Weight v. CunninghamTennessee Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Williams v. NashvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1891
  5. State Ex Rel. v. CollierTennessee Supreme Court · 1930

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
  2. City of Oak Ridge v. Roane CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Weakley County Municipal Electric System v. VickCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1957
  4. Crewse v. BeelerTennessee Supreme Court · 1948
  5. City of Watauga v. City of Johnson CityTennessee Supreme Court · 1979

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API