Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Chesebro Vs. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 27, 1939

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

35 entries 7 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. MountaIn Timber Co. Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1917
  2. Spencer Vs. Merchant US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1888
  3. Hancock Vs. Muskogee US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1919
  4. Branson Vs. Bush US Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1919
  5. Browning Vs. Hooper US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1926
  6. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. Vs. Bradley US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1896
  7. Londoner Vs. Denver US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1908
  8. Chesebro v. Los
    Search
  9. Angeles County Flood Control Dist. - 306 U.S. 459 (1939) U.S. Supreme Court Chesebro v. Los
    Search
  10. Angeles County Flood Control Dist., 306 U.S. 459 (1939) Chesebro v. Los
    Search
  11. and, in substance, the decision of the state supreme court is in favor of its validity. See New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman
    Search
  12. deprives him of his constitutional right to be heard. See St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  13. Railroad Commission v. Eastern
    Search
  14. Mason Co. v. Tax
    Search
  15. by our decisions, or that it is so clearly not debatable as to require dismissal for lack of substance. Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  16. Alton Railroad Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  17. to acquire, construct, maintain and operate the same, may impose special tax burdens upon the lands benefited. Hagar v. Reclamation
    Search
  18. French v. Barber
    Search
  19. Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S. 324 , 181 U. S. 342 . And see Houck v. Little
    Search
  20. by the improvements, prior appropriate and adequate inquiry is presumed, and the finding is conclusive. Parsons v. District
    Search
  21. Phillip Wagner, Inc. v. Leser
    Search
  22. Withnell v. Ruecking
    Search
  23. Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester
    Search
  24. Milheim v. Moffat
    Search
  25. to hear them and to consider and decide whether their lands will be specially benefited. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley
    Search
  26. Embree v. Kansas
    Search
  27. regards the substance of their enactments as controlling, rather than mere forms of expression employed. Londoner v. Denver
    Search
  28. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Hamilton
    Search
  29. U.S. Supreme Court Chesebro v. Los
    Search
  30. Bryant v. Zimmerman
    Search
  31. See St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  32. Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  33. Hagar v. Reclamation
    Search
  34. Houck v. Little
    Search
  35. Parsons v. District
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial