Legal Opinion

Danielley v. City of Princeton

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1933No. CC 464PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HatoheR, Judge :

Upon the petition of Danielley and others to the State Water Commission (hereinafter called the Commission), alleging the pollution of Brush Creek by the sewage of the city of Princeton and that petitioners were directly affected injuriously by such pollution, the city was cited under Code 1931, 16-11-5. A hearing was had, and an order was entered by the Commission directing the city to cease depositing sewage in Brush Creek or to install the Imhoff sewage filter system, which, the Commission estimated would cost approximately $75,000 with an annual operating cost of $3,600…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of La.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. State v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
  3. Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. City of SpringfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
  5. Hodges v. Public Service CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Duncan v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
  2. State Ex Rel. State Building Commission v. BaileyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Household Finance Corp. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Louk v. CormierWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Sims v. FisherWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1943

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

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

Powered by the Exa API