Legal Opinion

Roberts v. Richland Irrigation District

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 27, 1933No. 516PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds

Richland Irrigation District is a corporation organized under the laws of Washington; and appellant owns forty acres of agricultural lánd within its limits. In 1920, at an election duly held, a majority of the votes cast (appellant objecting) authorized the Directors to issue and sell $538,000 of its interest-bearing bonds. This was done and the proceeds were devoted to improvements for irrigation purposes as contemplated. Interest on the bonds was made payable semi-annually; the principal in annual installments commencing July 1, 1931.

For ten years the Directors assessed against separate…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Norwood v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
  4. Houck v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  5. Valley Farms Co. of Yonkers v. County of WestchesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1923

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Utley v. St. PetersburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Gaynor v. MarohnNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
  5. In Re the Dissolution & Disorganization of Horse Heaven Irrigation DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1941

26 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