Legal Opinion
Higgs v. City of Martin
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided June 18, 1932PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKinney
By the bill complainant asks that two of the ordinances of the City of Martin he declared invalid, because arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The demurrer to the bill was overruled by the chancellor and a discretionary appeal allowed.
We find it necessary to consider only one of these ordinances, which is as follows:
“AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE ESTABLISHMENT, ERECTION OR CONSTRUCTION OF A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION, OR PLACE OF BUSINESS WHERE MOTOR FUELS, MOTOR LUBRICATING OILS, OR MOTOR ACCESSORIES ARE SOLD, WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET OF ANY CHURCH, SCHOOL BUILDING OR HOSPITAL BUILDING…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McKelley v. City of MurfreesboroTennessee Supreme Court · 1931
- Martin v. City of DanvilleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- City of Muskogee v. MortonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- State ex rel. Wittkop v. GarnerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1926
- State ex rel. Savitz-Denbigh Co. v. BigelowSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1927