Legal Opinion

Miller v. State Entomologist

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided November 18, 1926PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurks, J.

This is a proceeding, under the “cedar rust” statute, to cause the destruction, as a nuisance, of certain red cedar trees on the lands of the plaintiffs in error. Sections 1, 2 and 9 of the original act (Acts 1914, p. 49), carried into the Code as sections 885, 886 and 893, are given in the margin. *

The cedars sought to destroyed grow wild, mostly on grazing lands, and are not propagated for commer*179cial purposes. They vary in height from mere sprouts to shrubs or trees six or eight feet high and some of them much higher. The smaller ones are used to some extent for “Christmas trees.” The chief…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Eubank v. City of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  3. Bowman v. Virginia State EntomologistSupreme Court of Virginia · 1920
  4. City of Portsmouth v. WeissSupreme Court of Virginia · 1926
  5. Rinehart v. PirkeySupreme Court of Virginia · 1919

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Miller v. SchoeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Farley v. GraneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Almond v. DaySupreme Court of Virginia · 1955
  4. Kirkpatrick v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1926
  5. Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. HaireDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003

14 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