Legal Opinion
Sponenbarger v. United States
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Decided October 20, 1937No. 7984PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, District Judge.
This action was instituted under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (20), for compensation for the alleged taking of plaintiff’s property for a public purpose. Plaintiff owns forty acres of land in Desha county, Ark., the fair market value of which, it is alleged, was reduced from $5,-000 to $1,000 as a result of the establishment of the Boeuf floodway, which included plaintiff’s property, under authority of the Flood Control Act of May IS, 1928, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 702a, 702b-702d, 702e-702g, 702fi-702j, 702k, 702/, 702m.
The additional parties plaintiff were made parties upon…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- United States v. LynahSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Manigault v. SpringsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. SponenbargerSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Board of Directors, St. Francis Levee Dist. v. MorledgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Ark. State Highway Comm. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964