Legal Opinion
Boynton v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided March 29, 1932No. 555PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcDERMOTT, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
'The plaintiffs and interveners have invested $6,677,009 in the obligations of the Moffat Tunnel district. Their money has been expended in the construction of iho tunnel. They have not been paid their interest as it became due, although taxes have been collected for that purpose. They have come into a court of competent jurisdiction, presented their grievances, and have asked for a hearing. They are stopped at the threshold, and their bill dismissed. The Constitution of the United States (article 3, § 2) confers upon courts of the United States the power to…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Kline v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- McClellan v. CarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. CaubleSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Quint v. Vail ResortsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2023
- Estate of McMorris v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- Fitzgerald v. AbramsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1950
- Denver-Greeley Valley Water Users Ass'n v. McNeilCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1942
- Bentley M. McMullin v. Frederick H. ToddCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.