Real Estate Exchange Corp. v. Muskegon County Drain Commissioner
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.
This case arises because defendants, taxing authorities, pursuant to a mandatory order of the United States district court for the western district of Michigan, have proceeded to assess and tax certain property owned by the plaintiffs and located within the so-called Ruddiman Valley No. 3 drainage district contra to a prior injunction of the circuit court of Muskegon county.
It appears that, in 1929, proceedings were had under the general drain laws then in effect (Act No. 316, Pub. Acts 1923, as amended by Act No. 365, Pub. Acts 1925, and Act No. 331, Pub. Acts 1927’ ) for the establishment…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Stoll v. GottliebSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Fauntleroy v. LumSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Riggs v. Johnson CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Embry v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Krempa v. Westerbeek (In Re Krempa)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 2007