Legal Opinion

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist v. Haynes

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 23, 1937PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By MONTGOMERY, J.

The appellants in these twenty-seven several actions are property owners entitled to compensation or damages, or both, as the result of their real estate being affected injuriously by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District project. The basis of the complaints of appellants is that the conservancy court established an incorrect rule for the assessment of compensation and damages to them. The question is stated by appellants in the following language:

“In the appropriation cases which §6828-34 GC, now insures to appellants, and which the conservancy court has…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Chesapeake & Hocking Ry Co. v. SnyderOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. ClowOhio Court of Appeals · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API