Legal Opinion
Cochran v. City of Nome
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided August 7, 1944No. 3606PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MORISON, District Judge.
The first and second queries propounded are very natural and proper ones, and as they relate to the same matter they may be disposed of together. They are as follows: “In exercising their discretion must the plaintiffs and the ‘then Mayor of Nome’ be unanimous in so doing; if not do the plaintiffs have one vote each and the ‘then Mayor of Nome’ only one vote, in case of disagreement?” .....
In answer to these queries the Court finds that the devisor himself in his will constitutes and calls, the executors of his will and the Mayor of Nome a “board,” and commits *431to this…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Boyd's Lessee v. GravesSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Guthrie v. HarknessSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Ottawa v. CareySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Barnett v. DenisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Hill v. MemphisSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Girves v. Kenai Peninsula BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- Ash v. City of Omaha Ex Rel. PentzienNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- In re the Annexation to City of AnchorageDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1955