Legal Opinion
Meyer v. Reclamation District No. 17
California Supreme Court
Decided February 14, 1916No. Sac. No. 2193. Department OnePublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
This is an action authorized by section 3462 of the Political Code, as amended in 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 644). The plaintiff seeks to modify or annul an assessment levied in behalf of the reclamation district by the board of supervisors of the county. That section provides that when the commissioners have completed their assessment, the same shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors, who shall thereupon appoint a time for the hearing of objections thereto of which notice shall be given. At this hearing any person interested in any land assessed may file written objections to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Reclamation Dist. No. 673 v. DiepenbrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Reclamation Dist. No. 17 v. BonbiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Reclamation District v. HersheyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Finnan v. Reclamation Dist. No. 273California Court of Appeal · 1915
- Reclamation Dist. No. 730 v. HersheyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Silva v. Reclamation District No. 1001California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Spurrier v. Reclamation District No. 17California Supreme Court · 1916
- Whitley v. Islais Creek Reclamation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Luckehe v. Reclamation District No. 2054California Court of Appeal · 1925