Legal Opinion
COUNTY HIGHWAY COM'N OF RUTHERFORD CTY. v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Decided December 5, 1969PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTodd, J.
This is an eminent domain proceeding wherein the trial court awarded possession to petitioner and respondent-property owner has appealed.
The compensation to be paid respondent has not yet been ascertained or adjudged, hence this appeal relates only to the right of the petitioner to take the property in question.
The original petition for condemnation alleged that respondent was the owner of certain property, described same by metes and bounds, and continued:
III
“That under Project No. S-6303-(1) the Department of Highways and Public Works of the State of Tennessee is to construct a highway from…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- City Of Pittsburgh v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956
- Southern Railway Co. v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
- Nashville I-40 Steering Committee, Etc. v. Buford Ellington, GovernorCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- Road Review League, Town of Bedford v. BoydDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sierra Club v. VolpeDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1972
- Rivergate Wine & Liquors, Inc. v. City of GoodlettsvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1983
- Galloway v. Arkansas State Highway & Transportation DepartmentSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
- Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency v. EatonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2006
- Kuchle Realty Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.