Legal Opinion

City of Knoxville v. Heth

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1948PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett

In this suit the City of Knoxville, a municipal corporation, acting by and through the Knoxville Utilities Board, *324a corporate agency of said municipality, seeks to condemn the real property, a business building adjoining the petitioner’s general administrative offices, of the defendants by exercise of tbe right of eminent domain. We will refer to the City of Knoxville as the ‘ ‘ City ”; to the Knoxville Utilities Board as the “Board”, and the property owner and those interested therein as the “Defendants”.

The petition was filed pursuant to Code Sections 3109-3130, inclusive, these being the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Dornan v. Philadelphia Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Southern Railway Co. v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. City of SpringfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. Light v. City of DanvilleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1937

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Duck River Electric Membership Corp. v. City of ManchesterTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Reading Area Water Authority v. Schuylkill River Greenway Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Batson v. Pleasant View Utility DistrictCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1979
  4. City of Shelbyville v. State Ex Rel. Bedford CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Southeastern Promotions, Inc. v. ConradDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1972

9 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