State Ex Rel. Foster v. City of Kansas City
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Jackson, J.:
This is an action in quo warranto. The case was heard on the petition and answer of the city, plus certain stipulations. The state, as represented by the county attorney, claims under the agreed facts that Kansas City has no power to condemn by eminent domain the certain described part of a water system now located within the city limits of Kansas City, but belonging to Quindaro Township. The trial court, after full consideration of the questions submitted to it, held that the city had sufficient power to condemn the water system, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Highway Com. v. ElizabethNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- State ex rel. Schenck v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- City of Norton v. LowdenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1936
- Murphy v. CurtisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1959
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Louisiana Power and Light Co. v. City of HoumaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1969
- Attorney General Opinion No., Kansas Attorney General Reports1994