Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Wilcox v. Riverview Drainage District

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 26, 1933No. 12,975PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burke

Plaintive in error is hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants in error as the district.

Plaintiff, holding certain bonds of the district, brought mandamus to compel the district to make an additional tax levy to pay them. Its general demurrer to the answer was overruled and it elected to stand. To review the judgment of dismissal thereupon entered against it this writ is prosecuted.

The district was organized in 1921 under our drainage statutes, hereinafter referred to, and issued $50,000 in bonds. As required by said statutes the benefits to accrue from the construction of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
  2. Interstate Trust Co. v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  3. Thomas v. Henrylyn Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1926
  4. Board of County Commissioners v. HeathSupreme Court of Colorado · 1930

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Rogers v. LetfordSupreme Court of Colorado · 1938
  2. Municipal Investors Assn. v. BirminghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Gordon v. Wheatridge Water DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1941
  4. Denver-Greeley Valley Irr. Dist. v. McNeilCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1936
  5. Denver-Greeley Valley Irr. Dist. v. McNeilCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API