Legal Opinion
City of Tullahoma, Tennessee v. Coffee County, Tennessee
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided April 2, 1962No. Civ. A. No. 510PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEESE, District Judge.
The plaintiff City holds in its general fund a sum of money which the defendant has demanded be paid over to the County. The City refused this demand and filed a complaint seeking a declaration of the respective rights of the parties under Section 13 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act.1 The defendant *796County has now also asked for a declaration of the rights of the parties, and similar controversies in other proceedings are being held in abeyance awaiting the final determination of this action. Section 13 provides for financial assistance in lieu of taxes to those…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Armour Packing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Farmers & Merchants Bank of Monroe v. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- President of the Bank of the United States v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Waldschmidt v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Murray)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1983
- City of Shelbyville v. State Ex Rel. Bedford CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1967
- Keystone Leasing Corp. v. Peoples Protective Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1981
- Doyle S. Silliman v. City of MemphisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2014
- Niswonger v. American Aviation, Inc.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.