City of Louisville v. Button
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 91 — Action by J. H. Button against tiie City op Louisville por an Injunction to Restrain the Collection op Certain Taxes. APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT,CHANCERY DIVISION, NO. 1-SHACKELFORD MIDLER, judge. Judgmfnt for Plaintiff and Defendant Appeals..
Read the full summary
Case 91 — Action by J. H. Button against tiie City op Louisville por an Injunction to Restrain the Collection op Certain Taxes. APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT,CHANCERY DIVISION, NO. 1-SHACKELFORD MIDLER, judge. Judgmfnt for Plaintiff and Defendant Appeals.. For the appellant and the information of the court it may be stated that the main legal question involved in this- appeal is whether or not the general council of the city of Louisville can by resolution authorize and direct the hoard of public works to sprinkle the streets of said city, or any of them, and appropriate a sum…
1Opinion of the Court
■Opinion of the court by
JUDGE O’REAR
Affirming.
The levy ordinance for 1904 passed by the common council of the city of Louisville made no provision for street sprink*734ling. Of the total levy of $1.86 on each $100, 33 1-4 cents-were allotted for schools, 25 cents for fire department, 11 1-4 cents for street and sewer cleaning, 10 cents for reconstruction of streets, 5 cents for street repairs, one-half of one-cent for construction and repair of sewers, 4 1-2 cents for the-House of Refuge^ 9 cents for charitable institutions, 6-cents for parks, 4 cents for library, 36 1-4 cents for general…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Carroll v. Williams, County TreasurerTexas Supreme Court · 1918
- City of Newport v. McLaneCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Gilbert v. GreeneCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- Dickinson v. BlackwoodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Williams v. CarrollCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.