Legal Opinion

Purcell v. Davis

Montana Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1935No. 7,427PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Matthews

In November, 1934, the plaintiffs, Arthur and Amelia Purcell, instituted proceedings against the defendants, Kenneth Davis and R. C. Tarrant, copartners doing business under the name of the Cut Bank Refining Company, to enjoin the erection of a refinery or topping plant for the refining of crude oil in a residential district of Cut Bank, the county seat of Glacier county. The allegations of the complaint are that the plaintiffs are the joint owners of a lot on which three houses stand, one occupied by the plaintiffs and two by tenants, all of the reasonable value of $12,500, abutting on main…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Co. v. Sun Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Fleming v. LockwoodMontana Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Everett v. PaschallWashington Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Helms v. Eastern Kansas Oil Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  5. State ex rel. Ford v. YoungMontana Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Dunphy v. Anaconda CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Dutton v. Rocky Mountain PhosphatesMontana Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Tally Bissell Neighbors, Inc. v. Eyrie Shotgun Ranch, LLCMontana Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Chisholm v. Vocational School for GirlsMontana Supreme Court · 1936

14 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