Legal Opinion
Sugar Bowl Drainage District v. Miller, Et Vir.
Supreme Court of Florida
Decided July 12, 1935PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTerrell, J.
Appellee brought suit in equity pursuant to Chapter 14572, Acts 1929, to foreclose a tax certificate issued August 4, 1919, for the non-payment of State and county taxes of 1918. Appellants were named parties defendant and appeared to the bill, but defendant, Ringling Isles, Inc., suffered a decree pro confesso to be entered against it. The defendant, Sugar Bowl Drainage District, filed its answer in which it alleged that none of the drainage taxes had beeh paid on the land involved since the district was organized, that it (Sugar Bowl Drainage District) had foreclosed on drainage tax…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Malott v. Board of County CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1928
- State v. LockeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923
- City of Sanford v. DialSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
- Burnett El Al. v. GreenSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Andrews v. Pal-Mar Water Control Dist.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980
- Dept. of Revenue v. Canaveral Port Auth.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Baldwin Drainage Dist. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1948
- Bostwick v. Baldwin Drainage Dist.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1945
- Ago, Florida Attorney General Reports1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.