Legal Opinion

Dolores No. 2 Land & Canal Co. v. Hartman

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 15, 1891PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from District Court of La Plata County.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Helm

Upon the oral argument all questions raised by the assignments of error and briefs were abandoned save the one relating to costs. This is a proceeding under the eminent domain statute, and the order of the court, which for all practical purposes constitutes the final judgment, allowed respondent Hartman, the owner of the premises condemned, his court costs expended in connection therewith. It is contended that in condemnation proceedings under our statute neither party can recover costs, and hence that the order of the court is in this respect erroneous.

The eminent domain act is entirely…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Toledo, Ann Arbor & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. DunlapMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  2. Denver & New Orleans R. R. v. LambornSupreme Court of Colorado · 1885
  3. Gifford v. Inhabitants of DartmouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Wassenich v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  2. Leadville Water Co. v. Parkville Water DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1967
  3. Denver Joint Stock Land Bank v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1940
  4. Brainerd v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1911
  5. Moffat v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914

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