Legal Opinion

State v. Aitchison

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1934No. 7,217PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Anderson

Plaintiffs commenced this action to condemn a site for the purpose of creating, constructing, installing, flooding and main taining a rearing pond in which to plant, propagate and raise fish.

The defendant Aitehison is the owner of the land sought to be condemned. The defendant Western is the holder of a mortgage on these premises. After the service of summons and on the return day thereof, the defendants appeared in person without counsel, when a hearing was had and testimony received in support of the complaint. Thereafter the district court made and filed its interlocutory judgment and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Shoemaker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
  3. Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
  4. Spratt v. Helena Power Transmission Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Leeds v. City of RichmondIndiana Supreme Court · 1885

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Normile v. CooneyMontana Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Montana Power Company v. BokmaMontana Supreme Court · 1969
  3. General Agriculture Corporation v. MooreMontana Supreme Court · 1975
  4. City of Bozeman Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. VanimanMontana Supreme Court · 1994
  5. McCabe Petroleum Corp. v. Easement & Right-Of-Way Across Township 12 North, Range 23 EastMontana Supreme Court · 2004

9 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