Legal Opinion

Desimone v. Shields

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1929No. 21604. En BancPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTolman, J.

Appellants, as plaintiffs, brought this action to set aside the proceedings leading up to the formation of a water district, and to cancel and set aside the purported liens upon lands owned by them created by the water district and by a local improvement district organized under and coextensive with the water district. The trial court, on the merits, denied the plaintiffs any relief, and they have appealed.

Speaking generally, it appears that in 1926 there was a community containing approximately three thousand acres of land, adjacent to the city of Seattle on the south, and bisected by the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Eustis v. BollesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Wight v. DavidsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  3. Shepard v. BarronSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  4. Pierce v. Somerset RailwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  5. Pierce Oil Corp. v. Phoenix Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Chase v. CarneyWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Elston v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Spencer v. Pacific Mercantile Agency Collectors, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Vincent v. ShieldsWashington Supreme Court · 1930

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