The West River Bridge Company, Plaintiffs In Error v. Joseph Dix and the Towns of Brattleboro and Dummerston, In the County of Windham, Defendants In Error the West River Bridge Company, Plaintiffs In Error v. the Towns of Brattleboro and Dummerston, In the County of Windham, and Joseph Dix, Asa Boyden, and Phineas Underwood, Defendants In Error
Decision Date | 01 January 1848 |
Citation | 12 L.Ed. 535,47 U.S. 507,6 How. 507 |
Parties | THE WEST RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOSEPH DIX AND THE TOWNS OF BRATTLEBORO' AND DUMMERSTON, IN THE COUNTY OF WINDHAM, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. THE WEST RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE TOWNS OF BRATTLEBORO' AND DUMMERSTON, IN THE COUNTY OF WINDHAM, AND JOSEPH DIX, ASA BOYDEN, AND PHINEAS UNDERWOOD, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
To continue reading
Request your trial157 cases
-
Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City
..."on the theory that the revocation was a seizure of intangible property." Treanor at 792 n.54; see W. River Bridge Co. v. Dix , 47 U.S. (6 How.) 507, 523, 533–34, 12 L.Ed. 535 (1848) ; id. at 543 (Woodbury, J., concurring); 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 340 n.a (4th ed. 1840). ......
-
Louisiana Power Light Company v. City of Thibodaux
...without substance. Long Island Water-Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685, 17 S.Ct. 718, 41 L.Ed. 1165; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507, 12 L.Ed. 535. Certainly the avoidance of such a constitutional issue cannot justify a federal court's failure to exercise its jurisdictio......
-
Marsh Mining Co. v. Inland Empire Mining & Milling Co.
... 165 P. 1128 30 Idaho 1 MARSH MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. INLAND EMPIRE ... Shoshone County. Hon. John M. Flynn, Presiding Judge ... 129, ... 117 P. 755; Samish River Boom Co. v. Union Boom Co., ... 32 Wash. 586, ... were made defendants in the action ... The ... record ... 364, 7 ... L. R. A. 765 25 N.E. 92; West River Bridge v. Dix , ... 47 U.S. 507, 6 HOW ... ...
-
Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
...Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 9 L.Ed. 773. And all contracts are subject to the right of eminent domain. West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How. 507, 12 L.Ed. 535.14 The reservation of this necessary authority of the state is deemed to be a part of the contract. In the case last cited, the......
Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
-
Table of Cases
...1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), 256, 314, 316-17, 326, 385, 568, 1100, 1407, 1548, 1552 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 507, 12 L.Ed. 535 (1848), 954 West Winds, Inc. v. M.V. Resolute, 720 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1983), 52-53 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105, 38 S.Ct. 4......
-
Takings Law, Lucas, and the Growth Management Act
...43. Prior to Pumpelly, the Court recognized that states have an inherent sovereign power of eminent domain, West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (1848), and on two occasions restated without significant analysis the narrow view of takings recognized by state courts. See Legal Tender Ca......
-
What's yours can be mine: are there any private takings after Kelo v. City of New London?
...(12.) 200 U.S. 527 (1906). (13.) Id. at 529. (14.) See 2A SACKMAN, supra note 5, [section] 7.02[2]. (15.) West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (16.) See, e.g., Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954); Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700 (1923); Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905......
-
What's the Use? the Court Takes a Stance on the Public Use Doctrine in Kelo v. City of New London - Randy J. Bates, Ii
...v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30, 32 (1916); O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244, 253 (1915). 57. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (1848). The narrow interpretation of public use is the "actual use" test. 58. See, e.g., Ryerson v. Brown, 1877 WL 7142 *3-5 (Mich. 1877); Gayl......
Request a trial to view additional results