Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hesse v. City of Watertown

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1930No. File No. 7017Published

1DissentBrown, P. J.

I dissent. 'Under Constitution, art. 13, § 4, the city of Watertown is authorized to incur indebtedness for general purposes tO' the amount of 5 per cent of the assessed valuation of its taxable property for the year preceding that in which such indebtedness is incurred. In addition it may incur indebtedness to the extent of 10 per cent of such assessed valuation for the purpose of providing water and sewerage, and in addition. 8 per cent of such assessed valuation for the purpose of constructing electric light or other lighting plant. The additional indebtedness authorized for water and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. City of Joliet v. AlexanderIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Lang v. City of CavalierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Shields v. City of LovelandSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
  4. Searle v. Town HaxtunSupreme Court of Colorado · 1928
  5. Spangler v. City of MitchellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915

1 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