Dallas Country Levee District No. 2 v. Looney
Texas Supreme Court
Original application by the levee district for writ of mandamus against Looney, as Attorney General, to require him to approve bonds issued by the complainant.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Phillips
The object of this action is to require the Attorney General’s approval of certain bonds issued by Dallas Levee District No. 2 under the Canales Act of the Thirty-fifth Legislature. Chap. 25, Acts of Fourth Called Session. The right to the mandamus depends upon the constitutionality of that Act, and whether, if constitutional, it is still in force. These, therefore, are the questions presented for decision.
Formerly, our only constitutional provision authorizing the creation of levee districts and their issuance of bonds for levee purposes was that contained in section 52 of article 3. It…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Norwood v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Houck v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- In re the Bonds of the Madera Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 2010
- Underwriters v. Kirby Lumber Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1924
- City of Wichita Falls Ex Rel. L. E. Whitham & Co. v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1930
- Turbeville v. GowdyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1936
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.