Legal Opinion
Bale v. Floyd
Washington Supreme Court
Decided July 7, 1939No. 27427. En BancPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, J.
Plaintiffs instituted this action to remove a cloud from the title of their land included in a diking district which had issued warrants to various individuals.
The following facts were stipulated to by the parties litigant: Plaintiffs owned real property within diking district No. 5 in Pacific county; that diking district No. 5 was formed in the year 1920, but never constructed or caused to be constructed any dikes or other works or improvements; that no tax was ever levied by the district; and that there was not and never had been any money or funds in the treasury thereof.
It was further…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Potter v. City of New WhatcomWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- C. M. Barnes v. Turner and KirkwoodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
- Eidemiller v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- State Ex Rel. Clark v. BaileyMontana Supreme Court · 1935
- Howard v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesWashington Supreme Court · 1938
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Halverson v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Young v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1948
- Keyes v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- City of Beach v. GoepfertCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
- Halvorson v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.