City of Tuscaloosa v. Hill
Supreme Court of Alabama
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The City of Tuscaloosa sought an assessment of special benefit for street improvement against the property of Mrs. Alonzo- Hill, and from an adverse judgment appeals to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment was reversed. See City of Tuscaloosa, v. Evil, 14 Ala. App., 69 South. 486. Mrs. Hill now brings certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, C. J.—(1) As stated in the cases of Decatur v. Brock, 170 Ala. 149, 54 South. 209, and Harton v. Avondale, 147 Ala. 458, 41 South. 934, section 223 of the Constitution of 1901, was adopted to meet the decisions in the cases of City of Montgomery v. Birdsong, 126 Ala. 651, 28 South. 522, and Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 19 Sup. Ct. 187, 43 L. Ed. 443. As pointed out in the Harton Case, supra, the Birdsong Case was explained and qualified to some extent in the case of Montgomery v. Moore, 140 Ala. 638, 37 South. 291, and the Baker Case by French v. Barber, 181 U. S. 324, 21 Sup.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Norwood v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- City Council v. BirdsongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
- Mayor of Birmingham v. KleinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- City of Huntsville v. PulleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Tindall v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- Hamrick v. Town of AlbertvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- McRea v. Marion CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Hood v. City of BessemerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.