Legal Opinion

City of Tulsa v. Hindman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 22, 1927No. 17698PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HALL, C.

This was an action by Adésta F. Hindman against the city of Tulsa, for consequential damages resulting from the action of the city of Tulsa in paving one of its thoroughfares, Eleventh street, the entire width of the street, wiping out what had. been formerly set aside and assigned for purposes of sidewalk and parking, and ex tending the paving up to approximately 1.4 feet from one apartment house and up to 9.4 feet of another, both owned and operated by the plaintiff. These houses abutted Eleventh street only latterly, fronting ijn opposite directions on streets practically at right…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Pause v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
  2. Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
  3. Moose v. . CarsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  4. Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1894
  5. White v. Northwestern North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State Highway Commission v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  2. Hawks v. WalshSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  3. State Highway Commission v. BrixeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  4. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. JenningsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  5. City of Atlanta v. GoreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933

9 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