Legal Opinion

In Re East Contra Costa Irr. Dist.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 13, 1935No. 24962PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ST. SURE, District Judge.

I. The first ground of the motion to dis miss the petition is that it “does not state facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to any relief herein.” It is claimed that because “the petition does not state, inferentially or otherwise, that the creditors of the petitioner owning not less than thirty per centum in amount of its bonds, notes and certificates of indebtedness affected by the plan, excluding bonds, notes or certificates of indebtedness, owned, held or controlled by petitioner in a fund or otherwise, have accepted it,” the petition is fatally defective.

Subd…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  3. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
  5. Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re Imperial Irr. Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 1935
  2. Whitaker ex rel. Account of Volkart Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API