Legal Opinion

Viestenz v. Arthur Township

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1952No. File 7278PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrimson, J.

This is a suit in equity for a mandatory injunction. As grounds therefor plaintiffs allege that the defendants in constructing the public highways bounding plaintiffs’ lands failed to do that in accordance with scientific highway construction and engineering; that they have obstructed the natural *1031drainage of the surface waters by the embankments of the highway; that as a result thereof the surface waters from adjoining lands overflow the highway ditches and flood large portions of plaintiffs’ land; that plaintiffs suffer irreparable damage therefrom; that they have no adequate remedy at law.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. O'Brien v. MurphyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  3. Sweigart v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Carroll v. Township of RyeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Bartels Northern Oil Co. v. JackmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Little v. Burleigh CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Huber v. Oliver CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Olson v. Cass CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Kadlec v. Greendale Township Board of Township SupervisorsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998

15 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