Citation network
Sears Vs. City of Akron
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 04, 1918
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
-
Sears v. CitySearch
-
of Akron - 246 U.S. 242 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Sears v. CitySearch
-
of Akron, 246 U.S. 242 (1918) Sears v. CitySearch
-
in 1908. The character of the company's enterprise is described in Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. NorthernSearch
-
Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300 , and its possible rights were considered in Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. AkronSearch
-
of the Ohio Constitution. Ramapo Water Co. v. CitySearch
-
to those of the city, if that is necessary to justify the proceeding of the city, which the act authorized. See State v. CitySearch
-
Hamilton Gas Light Co. v. HamiltonSearch
-
appropriate property until it had been acted upon by acquiring the property authorized to be taken. Adirondack Ry. Co. v. NewSearch
-
which involves matters of state law, may possibly raise some questions presented to the state courts in Boettler v. AkronSearch
-
use. It is well settled that, while the question whether the purpose of a taking is a public one is judicial, Hairson v. DanvilleSearch
-
Ry. Co., 208 U. S. 598 , the necessity and the proper extent of a taking is a legislative question. Shoemaker v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. GettysburgSearch
-
United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
S. 65 . The legislature may refer such issues, if controverted, to the court for decision. P. C.C. & St.L. Ry. Co. v. CitySearch
-
action at law for damages, unless exceptional circumstances render resort to a court of equity appropriate. Parker v. WinnipiseogeeSearch
-
Osborne v. MissouriSearch
-
that defendant's diversion was of such a character that it would not substantially affect the company's use, McElroy v. GobleSearch
-
be such that the city would be held not to have exceeded its legal rights as riparian owner. City of Canton v. ShockSearch
-
Moody & Thomas Milling Co. v. CitySearch
-
Cleveland-Akron Bag Co. v. CitySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Sears v. CitySearch
-
Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. NorthernSearch
-
Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. AkronSearch
-
See State v. CitySearch
-
Adirondack Ry. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Boettler v. AkronSearch
-
Hairson v. DanvilleSearch
-
Shoemaker v. UnitedSearch
-
P. C.C. & St.L. Ry. Co. v. CitySearch
-
Parker v. WinnipiseogeeSearch
-
McElroy v. GobleSearch
-
City of Canton v. ShockSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial