City of Tulsa v. Lloyd
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the CourtPhelps, J.
As the parties hereto occupy the same relative positions they occupied in the trial court, they will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
Plaintiff, desiring to obtain an easement 20 feet wide and more than one-half mile long across the property of defendant for the purpose of laying a sewer line, instituted proceedings under .the law of eminent domain to procure the same. The question, as to defendant’s damages was submitted to a jury in the district court of Tulsa county, which fixed such damages at the sum of 81,000, and from the judgment for said amount plaintiff prosecutes this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Peoria, Bloomington & Champaign Traction Co. v. VanceIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
- Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. CosgriffNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
- Hope Natural Gas Co. v. Ideal Gasoline Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Revell v. City of MuskogeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
3Cited by10 opinions
- Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. WarfordArizona Supreme Court · 1949
- Glover v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Kansas · 1938
- State Ex Rel. City of Ardmore v. WintersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
- Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. BurkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
- Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. LarwoodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.