Goodrich Falls Electric Co. v. Howard
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
For convenience the questions are not answered in their order. Also, the separate consideration of some of them is rendered undesirable and inexpedient by their interdependence. The issues presented rest in part upon the same or related principles for their decision.
I. The article in the warrant for the precinct meeting gave suffi- ' cient notice of a vote to acquire the plaintiff’s property by eminent domain. It was of a vote to acquire or establish. Acquisition is taking with or against consent. Another article relating to the rais ing of money to pay for the cost of “purchasing or taking”…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Sweet v. RechelSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Crozier v. Fried. Krupp AktiengesellschaftSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Stone v. City of CharlestownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Riemer v. Columbia Medical Plan, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Cloutier v. Epping Water & Sewer CommissionSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
- Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
- Perkins v. New Hampshire Power Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940
- Town of Seabrook v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.