Legal Opinion

Buck v. Kuykendall

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided December 7, 1923No. 189PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). A like issue was presented to this court, as it is now constituted, in Interstate Motor Transit Co. v. Kuykendall, 284 Fed. 882. But for the earnestness manifested by counsel for the plaintiff, who was also attorney for the plaintiff in the named case, we would rest this issue upon what was there said.

*199It is asserted that the Act of July 11, 1916, supra, gave to the plaintiff a vested right to use this highway by reason of the contribution to the construction thereof by the United States and the declaration by Congress that the highway is a “post road.”…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Second Employers'liability CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  5. Kane v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1916

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Buck v. KuykendallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. State v. JohnsonMontana Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. BennettMontana Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Interstate Transit Co. v. DerrMontana Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Arneson v. DennyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1928

2 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