Legal Opinion

Kelly v. City of Sunnyside

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1932No. 23438. Department TwoPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

— The plaintiff, the owner of local improvement guaranty fund bonds issued by the defendant city, brought this action for recovery upon the bonds and to require the city to levy a tax for the benefit of the guaranty fund, as provided for in chapter 141, Laws of 1923, p. 454 (Rem. 1927 Sup., § 9351-1 et seq.). The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment upon the bonds and a direction that the tax be levied, from which the defendants appeal.

Section 1 of the act referred to provides that every city and town may immediately create a fund for the purpose of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Comfort v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Austin v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Hallahan v. City of Port AngelesWashington Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. American Co. v. City of LakeportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Marks v. City of MandanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Banner v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1955
  4. State Ex Rel. Washington Mutual Savings Bank v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  5. City of Santa Fe v. First Nat. Bank in RatonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1937

6 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