City of Birmingham v. Flowers
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
While the border line, in some instances, is close as to when certain overflows to land are to be regarded as permanent and the damage to the land is to be based upon the difference in the value of the land with or without the cause of the overflow, or whether the said overflows occurring at different times are to be regarded as occasional recurrent ones and each overflow constitutes a separate and distinct cause of action, yet in our case of Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Mitchell, 181 Ala. 576, 61 So. 934, 935, it was said: “Where the channel of a stream is so obstructed by a permanent dam…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway v. BiggsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
- Arndt v. City of CullmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Harris v. Town of Tarrant CitySupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- City of Birmingham v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Sloss-S. S. & I. Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Morgan v. City of TuscaloosaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- Kennedy v. City of MontgomerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
- City of Birmingham v. GoolsbySupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Alabama, Inc. v. Gadsden Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1946
- Law v. Gulf States Steel Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1934
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.