Legal Opinion
Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Decided October 28, 1977PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DROWOTA, Judge.
In this suit for declaratory judgment, plaintiff Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency urges that a state statute which requires it to reimburse defendant utilities for the cost of relocating their equipment to further certain urban renewal projects is an unconstitutional impairment of several of plaintiff’s contracts.
Plaintiff Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency, formerly the Nashville Housing Authority, is recognized at § 18.04 of the Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County as both a city and county housing authority…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Coleman v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- City of Trenton v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Williams v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- City of Worcester v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- City of Plainfield v. Public Service Electric and Gas CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- City & County of Denver v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1988
- Beazley v. TurgeonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1988
- Maury County Ex Rel. Maury Regional Hospital v. Tennessee State Board of EqualizationCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2003
- South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. City of ChattanoogaCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.