Legal Opinion · Dissent

Asplund v. City of Santa Fe

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided February 11, 1926No. 3127Published

1DissentBickley, J.

I can readily give my concurrence to the declaration of the CHIEF JUSTICE that subsections 68, 69 and 70, § 3564, Code 1915, affords power to cities and towns to grant franchises to individuals and incorporated companies to erect, maintain, and operate waterworks. I reach this conclusion because, in my opinion :(1) The language itself, independent of any extraneous, aids, bears that construction;

’(2) Contemporary construction of municipal officers and private utility corporations and legislative construction;(3) The construction of courts of New Mexico and other states having similar…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pikes Peak Power Co. v. City of Colorado SpringsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
  2. Andrews v. National Foundry & Pipe Works, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1894
  3. City of Leadville v. Leadville Sewer Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1909
  4. Port Huron & Northwestern Railway Co. v. RichardsMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  5. City of Centerville v. Fidelity Trust & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902

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