Legal Opinion

Lesamiz v. Whitestone Reclamation District

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1936No. 25844. En BancPublished

1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.

— Priorto 1926, the Whitestone reclamation district had become heavily bonded. It had also encountered a shortage of water, owing to the failure of one of its reservoirs to hold water, which made it unable to furnish water to a large body of land, and consequently a large acreage was eliminated from the district. Prior to that elimination, the owners had paid one or more assessments for bond interest. The district felt that, inasmuch as the lands eliminated had received no benefits whatever, it would be but fair to refund to such owners the assessments they had paid for interest on the bonds.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Wells v. HartungWashington Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Otis Orchards Co. v. Otis Orchards Irrigation District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Roberts v. Richland Irrigation DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Wight v. McGuiganNebraska Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Walla Walla CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1921

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