Legal Opinion

Roundenbush v. Mitchell

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1900No. 18,815PublishedCited by 4 opinions

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtDowling, J.

This is a proceeding under the provisions of the act of 1889 for an allotment of the work of keeping a public drain in repair. Acts 1889, p. 53, §§5632-5636 Burns 1894.

The appellee, who was the county surveyor, and, ex officio, a drainage commissioner, in pursuance of §5633, supra, after notice duly given to the persons to be affected, apportioned to each parcel of land benefited by a public drain in Hamilton county, a division thereof, to be cleaned out annually and kept in repair by the owner of each of said tracts. This apportionment was made upon the basis of the benefits alleged to be…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Lipes v. HandIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Weaver v. TemplinIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. State ex rel. Baltzell v. StewartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
  5. O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley Draining Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1869

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kilty v. MichaelIndiana Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Williams v. OsborneIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
  3. LaRowe v. Kokomo Gas & Fuel Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. LaRowe v. Kokomo Gas & Fuel Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API