Cascaden v. City of Waterloo
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Blade Hawle District Court. — Plow. A. S. Blair, Judge. Plaintiee, a taxpayer of the city of Waterloo, brings this action to restrain the defendants, the mayor and council of said city, from enforcing a certain resolution creating a new ward in said city. Defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s petition was sustained, and, plaintiff electing to> stand on his petition, judgment was rendered against him, from which he appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtGiven, J.
I. The petition filed March 16, 1898, and an amendment thereto, are, in substance, as .follows: That the defendant city is a city of the second class; that the other defendants are the mayor and city council thereof, and that plaintiff is a resident of said city, is the owner of taxable real and personal property therein, and has been a taxpayer *675in said city for many years; that on 'the fourteenth day of September, 1896, an ordinance was dnly adopted dividing said city' into four wards, under which the defendant officers were duly elected; that on Ianuary 24, 1898,. said city council, by a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Henke v. McCordSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Brockman v. City of CrestonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Ryce v. City of OsageSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Snyder v. FosterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
- Blanden v. City of Fort DodgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- City of Louisville v. ParsonsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of CommissionersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973
- Duggan v. City of EmporiaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- State ex rel. Linde v. HallNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Perrault v. RobinsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1916
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.