Legal Opinion
State v. 4.7 Acres of Land
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided December 7, 1948No. 3774PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the statutes involved assigns as reasons that no provision is made for hearing and the presentation of evidence upon the question of “feasibility” of the proposed taking, and in the case of the general statute, upon the question of public neces sity; and that the special act as amended provides for the transfer of title to the town of Moultonborough after taking. As the motion is interpreted, no claim is madé that the taking is not for a public purpose (Cf. Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 297), or that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Shoemaker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Rindge Co. v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of ProvidenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Bragg v. WeaverSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Georgia v. City of ChattanoogaSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Gazzola v. ClementsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
- HENRY WALKER PARK ASSOCIATION v. MathewsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
- Hancock v. City of ConcordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
- Appeal of City of KeeneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1997
- Waisman v. ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.