Hartman v. Aurora Sanitary District
Illinois Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Klingbiel
The plaintiff, Joseph E. Hartman, applied for a permit to make a connection with a sewer line of the defendant, Aurora Sanitary District. The permit was granted, but only after he had paid, under protest, the required “connection” fee of $160. Thereafter he brought this action to recover the amount he had paid, alleging that the ordinance under which the charge was made, and the statute relied upon to authorize it, violated his constitutional rights. The defendant answered, its motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the complaint was dismissed. The plaintiff appeals directly to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer Dist. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1948
- Carson v. Brockton Sewerage CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Spalding v. City of Granite CityIllinois Supreme Court · 1953
- City of Mt. Vernon v. JulianIllinois Supreme Court · 1938
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Contractors & Builders Ass'n v. City of DunedinSupreme Court of Florida · 1976
- State v. City of Port OrangeSupreme Court of Florida · 1994
- Coulter v. City of RawlinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1983
- Graham v. Kochville TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
- S. S. & O. Corp. v. Township of Bernards Sewerage AuthoritySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.