Legal Opinion

Cooke v. City of Portland

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1931PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

This is an action by a property owner to recover damages against the city of Portland on account of the vacation of that part of 21st street between the south line of Elm street and the north line of Spring street. The street was vacated by the city in accordance with the petition of School District No. 1 of Multnomah county, the owner of blocks 91 and 92 in Carter’s addition to the city of Portland. The purpose of the vacation was to afford a playground for the children attending the Ainsworth school which is located in block 92. Plaintiff is the owner of lot 5 in Portland Heights addition.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kemp v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Sandstrom v. Oregon-washington Ry. & Nav. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1915
  3. City of Jackson v. WelchMississippi Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Lockwood v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. McGrath v. StevensonWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Richmond v. City of HintonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. FlemingMississippi Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. LemleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969

2 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