Legal Opinion

Nealy v. Hazen

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided May 14, 1934No. 5962PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District for the condemnation of land for the widening of Van Ness street, and for the assessment of benefits. Notice of the condemnation proceedings was published as required by the statute, and the owners of the property sought to be taken were personally served with notice. No notice, however, was served on any of the appellants, and consequently none of them appeared or participated in the condemnation proceedings.

The verdict fixing the damages and assessing benefits…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. ReichelderferCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1932
  2. Shannon & Luchs Const. Co. v. ReichelderferCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1932
  3. Briggs v. BrownlowDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1920
  4. Wilkinson v. DoughertyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1928
  5. Dougherty v. GalliherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1928

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Johnson & Wimsatt, Inc. v. HazenCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API