Legal Opinion

Robertson v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 1960PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Tomlinson

The defendant Railway Company operates its switch-yard on property belonging to it within 1,800 feet of the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Robertson. As a result of such operations, Mr. and Mrs. Robertson sued the railroad for damages to this realty. Their declaration specified the activities of the railroad in the operation of this switch-yard, and alleged that such operation “constitutes a continuous and perpetual nuisance which has greatly depreciated and diminished in value ’ ’ their aforesaid realty. They seek a recovery to the extent of its alleged depreciation.

To the action of the Court in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Terminal Co. v. LellyettTennessee Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Harmon v. RailroadTennessee Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Nashville & Decatur R. R. v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Johnson v. Utah-Idaho Cent. Ry. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Caldwell v. Knox Concrete Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1964
  2. Seaton v. SeatonDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1997
  3. Anderson v. American Limestone Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004
  4. Butcher v. Jefferson City Cabinet Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1968
  5. Clabo v. Great American Resorts, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2003

7 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