County Court v. Griswold
Supreme Court of Missouri
I. As to the park’s being of “public use”. The whole attempt of respondents’ counsel as to this point, is to prove by their own assertions and reasoning, that this law is unjust and oppressive upon a portion of, the people of the county and that should it be sanctioned, other similar laws may hereafter be passed. There is no pretense, nor the slightest allusion made in their long argument on this point, to the violation of any specific provision of the constitution.
Read the full summary
I. As to the park’s being of “public use”. The whole attempt of respondents’ counsel as to this point, is to prove by their own assertions and reasoning, that this law is unjust and oppressive upon a portion of, the people of the county and that should it be sanctioned, other similar laws may hereafter be passed. There is no pretense, nor the slightest allusion made in their long argument on this point, to the violation of any specific provision of the constitution. But there is no power in the court to remedy injustice or oppression in a legislative body unless some constitutional provision…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This case comes before us on an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, and the questions presented involve the constitutionality of the act of the legislature establishing Forest Park, approved March 25, 1874.
By the first section of the act a public park is established for the people of the county of St. Louis, to be called Forest Park, and its limits are designated and described. The County Court of the county is then authorized to purchase or condemn all the lands embraced within the defined boundaries for the purposes of the park, and there is a provision that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The People v. . Simeon DraperNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. ArmstrongNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Varick v. Smith & The Attorney GeneralNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
- People Ex Rel. Herrick v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Dingley v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- B. & O. Railroad v. P. W. & Ky. RailroadWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1881
- Varner v. MartinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- Kansas City v. LiebiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- State ex rel. Wood v. SchweickardtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Copeland v. City of St. JosephSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.