Legal Opinion

Chesebro v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 27, 1939No. 368PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Butler

Appellant maintains that a California statute authorizing an administrative board to levy special assessments on his land within a flood control district created by the legislature to pay cost of local improvements and facilities and of their operation, maintenance, and betterment, without providing him an opportunity to be heard on the question of benefits, is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chapter 755, Statutes 1915/ creates the Los Angeles flood control district. Section 2 declares that the purposes of the act are to provide for the control of the flood and…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  3. Londoner v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  4. Mountain Timber Company v. State of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  3. Martin v. Ben Davis Conservancy DistrictIndiana Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  5. Board of County Commissioners v. RobbSupreme Court of Kansas · 1948

40 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