Legal Opinion

Heilig v. City Council of Puyallup

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 1893No. 971PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

The main question in this case is, whether the members of the city council of Puyallup, which is a city of the third class, shall be paid for sitting as a board of equalization in the month of May. The act of March 9, 1893 (Laws, p. 157), amending the act of 1890 providing for the organization of municipal corporations of the second, third and fourth classes, amended § 133 of the act of 1890 (Laws, p. 192) by imposing upon the city clerk the duties of city assessor and abolishing the office of city assessor entirely. Another act (Laws 1893,…

2Cited by22 opinions

  1. Peavy v. McCombsIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
  2. State Ex Rel. Gebhardt v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1942
  3. People v. Keith Railway Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Hammack v. Monroe Street Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Lambert v. Bd. Trustees Public LibraryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913

17 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