Legal Opinion

Hogge v. Drainage District No. 7

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 14, 1930PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C.,

(after-stating the facts). The demurrer admits that plaintiffs’ lands have been damaged for a public use, and that the damage has not been ascertained or paid. This court has held that improvements for the protection of river valleys from overflow by building levees and draining them- by constructing ditches may be united in one improvement district. The court has -also held that a drainage and levee district, after building levees on each side of a river and constructing a reservoir thereby, has no right to build a dam at the outlet of the basin between the lower ends of the levees…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. United States v. LynahSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  4. Sanguinetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  5. Fort Worth Improvement District No. 1 v. City of Fort WorthTexas Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Renninger v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Bohannon v. Camden Bend Drainage DistrictMissouri Court of Appeals · 1948
  3. Drainage Dist. 7 of Poinsett County v. HutchinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  4. Keith v. Drainage Dist. No. 7 of Poinsett CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  5. St. Francis Drainage District v. AustinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956

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