Legal Opinion

Fox v. City of Bicknell

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1923No. 24,251PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.

Appellant, a resident taxpayer, sought to enjoin the city of Bicknell from acquiring a water-works plant owned by the Bicknell Water Company. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint. The,complaint shows by its allegations that the appellee city is doing and is proposing to do all things with reference to the acquisition of this plant pursuant to chapter 96 of the Acts of 1921, (Acts 1921 p. 205, §8920a et seq. Burns’ Supp. 1921). This act provides that a municipality may contract to acquire such plant, subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission ; that it may be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Winston v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Quill v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  3. City of Joliet v. AlexanderIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Voss v. Waterloo Water Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. State and Diver v. City of MiamiSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
  2. Clarke v. South Carolina Public Service AuthoritySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1935
  3. Lang v. City of CavalierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  4. City of Bowling Green v. KirbyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
  5. Bates v. State Bridge CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1929

29 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