Legal Opinion

Cannon v. Felsenthal

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 10, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The decree of the chancery court was correct. The principal ground relied upon for reversing the decree is that the commissioners were about to take a part of the property of appellant, and other real property within the proposed improvement district, without first condemning said property and paying them therefor.

Under § 4006 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, municipal corporations are given the power to lay off, open, widen, straighten, and establish streets, etc. Section 4007 of the Digest provides that no street shall be opened, straightened or widened…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of ProvidenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  4. Dickerson v. Tri-County Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  5. City of Paragould v. MilnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Little Rock v. SawyerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
  2. Yates v. SturgisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  3. Cherokee Village Homeowners Protective Ass'n v. Cherokee Village Road & Street Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
  4. McMahan v. Carroll CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
  5. Smith v. Arkansas Irrigation CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940

1 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