Citation network
Tulare Irrigation Dist. Vs. Shepard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 02, 1902
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 1 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Tulare Irrigation Dist. v. ShepardSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1902) Tulare Irrigation District v. ShepardSearch
-
and hence had no legal right to issue any bonds. Held, on the authority of Douglas County Commissioners v. BollesSearch
-
which the attempt to form the district was made are to be found set forth in the case of Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySearch
-
what is called the California Confirmation Act in regard to irrigation districts, and which is mentioned in Tregea v. ModestoSearch
-
it was never legally organized, and hence had no legal right to issue any bonds. In the case of Douglas County v. BollesSearch
-
a signature at the end thereof, and it might be claimed that the case came within the principle decided in Venice v. MurdockSearch
-
state of facts on the ground that those decisions did not present a case of statutory construction. See also Thompson v. PerrineSearch
-
Quint v. HoffmanSearch
-
de facto. That there may be such a corporation cannot be doubted. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company v. FifthSearch
-
Shapleigh v. SanSearch
-
see also cases decided by the federal courts in California, Miller v. PerrisSearch
-
Herring v. ModestoSearch
-
also Lamming v. GalushaSearch
-
Stout v. ZulickSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Snider's Sons Co. v. TroySearch
-
American Salt Co. v. HeidenheimerSearch
-
if anything can constitute a de facto corporation, the defendant herein constitutes one. The case of Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
none but the state can call its existence in question. The courts of California agree that such is the rule. People v. MontecitoSearch
-
Swartwout v. MichiganSearch
-
It was held in Shapleigh v. SanSearch
-
of the organization of the corporation. The case in 117 Cal., supra, also the cases of Reclamation District v. BurgerSearch
-
Cal. 442, and Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySearch
-
are cited to show the illegality of an organization without notice. On the other hand, Reclamation District v. GraySearch
-
of such act, but the act assumed to cure the irregularities of an organization prior thereto. In Swamp Land District v. SilverSearch
-
may be the decisions in California, the plaintiffs in error claim that this Court, in Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySearch
-
bonds for full value without notice, and a landowner sleeping upon his rights. The case of New York Cable Company v. MayorSearch
-
fact in question, and in such cases, the finding is conclusive in favor of a bona fide holder of bonds. Coloma v. EavesSearch
-
Venice v. MurdockSearch
-
U. S. 494 . In Bissell v. JeffersonvilleSearch
-
necessary means of information to discharge the duty. Adopting the language of this Court in the case of Knox County v. AspinwallSearch
-
county recorder. It is not left to inference as to which is the body to make the determination. In Anderson County v. BealSearch
-
The case is therefore brought within the cases, of which there is a long line in this Court, illustrated by Coloma v. EavesSearch
-
This doctrine is adhered to by this Court. Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
In Andes v. ElySearch
-
In Provident Life & Trust Company v. MercerSearch
-
of a bona fide holder, even though the condition had in fact not been performed. And in the case of Waite v. SantaSearch
-
here, a reference to them as contained in that opinion being all that is necessary. The case of Ogden City v. ArmstrongSearch
-
which had been issued. After all this had been done, we can properly use the language found in the opinion in Bissell v. JeffersonvilleSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Tulare Irrigation Dist. v. ShepardSearch
-
Tulare Irrigation District v. ShepardSearch
-
of Douglas County Commissioners v. BollesSearch
-
of Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySearch
-
Tregea v. ModestoSearch
-
of Douglas County v. BollesSearch
-
Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company v. FifthSearch
-
California, Miller v. PerrisSearch
-
Lamming v. GalushaSearch
-
of Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
People v. MontecitoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial