Legal Opinion

Town of Oneida v. Pearson Hardwood Flooring Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1935PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Cook

The complainant, town of Oneida, is a municipal corporation created by chapter 211, Private Acts of 1917. The defendant, Pearson Hardwood Flooring Company, is a private corporation whose manufacturing plant was situated inside the corporate limits of the town. By chapter 612, Private Acts of 1935, entitled “An Act to change the corporate line of the town of Oneida,” the municipal boundary was changed so as to exclude the defendant’s property from the municipal limits. Complainant insists that the act changing the corporate line is void, and that the defendant is not relieved from municipal…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Von Hoffman v. City of QuincySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Commissioners of Laramie County v. COMMISSIONERS OF ALBANY COUNTYSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. State v. YardleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Attorney General of Michigan Ex Rel. Kies v. LowreySupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  5. Williams v. NashvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Morton v. Johnson CityTennessee Supreme Court · 1960
  2. City of Oak Ridge v. Roane CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
  3. State Ex Rel. Bastnagel v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 1970
  4. C. G. Gomillion v. Phil M. Lightfoot, as Mayor of the City of TuskegeeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
  5. City of Watauga v. City of Johnson CityTennessee Supreme Court · 1979

10 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