Legal Opinion

Busch v. Joint Drainage District No. 49-79

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided May 13, 1924PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

— The record is voluminous. Many questions are argued. Counsel for appellants state in argument that the principal controversy is over the so-called “sand clause” and one or two other questions related thereto, which are argued together. These are the questions most elaborately argued by counsel upon either side. This being so, we shall attempt to abbreviate the issues, findings of fact, and our conclusions with reference thereto, omitting for the present the more seriously controverted propositions; otherwise it will be impossible to keep the opinion within a reasonable length. It seems to…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  2. Chippewa Bridge Co. v. City of DurandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  3. McGovern v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. Board of Commissioners v. GibsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Bass Foundry v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1888

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Keokuk Waterworks Co. v. KeokukSupreme Court of Iowa · 1938
  2. Haugen v. Humboldt-Kossuth Joint Drainage District No. 2Supreme Court of Iowa · 1941
  3. Gjellefald v. HuntSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  4. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Town of DysartSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
  5. Gjellefald v. Drainage District No. 42Supreme Court of Iowa · 1927

1 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