Hamilton County v. City of Chattanooga
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Swepston
The sole question in this ease is whether under Section 9 of Ch. 113 of the Public Acts of 1955. T.C.A. sec. 6-318, counties are included within the phrase “any affected instrumentality of the state of Tennessee”. Tlie chancellor answered this question in the affirmative and hence this appeal by the City of Chattanooga,
Able and constructive briefs have been filed by all counsel and the same have been given careful consideration. We do not deem it necessary or advisable, however, to refer in detail to every proposition advanced in the respective briefs, but shall confine our discussion to what…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Hill v. RobertsTennessee Supreme Court · 1919
- Witt v. McCanlessTennessee Supreme Court · 1956
- Tiger Creek Bus Line v. Tiger Creek Transp. Ass'nTennessee Supreme Court · 1948
- Town of Oneida v. Pearson Hardwood Flooring Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
- City of Lenoir City v. State ex rel. City of LoudonTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
- State Ex Rel. Spoone v. MAYOR AND ALDERMENTennessee Supreme Court · 1968
- State ex rel. Kessel v. AsheTennessee Supreme Court · 1994
- Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.