45 F.2d 11 (9th Cir. 1930), 6106, City of San Diego v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.

This document cites

• Federal Cases - 298 F. 431 (9th Cir. 1924), 4177, Kimama Highway Dist. v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
• Federal Cases - 104 U.S. 78 (1881), Kelly v. City Of Pittsburgh
• Federal Cases - 147 U.S. 190 (1893), 56, Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Decatur
• Federal Cases - 164 U.S. 112 (1896), 355, Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley
• Federal Cases - 166 U.S. 226 (1897), 129, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago



See all quotations

• Federal Cases - 172 U.S. 269 (1898), 84, Norwood v. Baker
• Federal Cases - 197 U.S. 430 (1905), 170, Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
• Federal Cases - 239 U.S. 478 (1916), 141, Myles Salt Company, Limited v. Iberia & St. Mary Drainage District
• Federal Cases - 240 U.S. 242 (1916), 187, Embree v. Kansas City & Liberty Boulevard Road District
• Federal Cases - 239 U.S. 254 (1915), 35, Houck v. Little River Drainage District
• Federal Cases - 239 U.S. 207 (1915), 28, Phillip Wagner, Inc. v. Baltimore
• Federal Cases - 249 U.S. 63 (1919), 142, Withnell v. Ruecking Construction Company
• Federal Cases - 250 U.S. 454 (1919), 360, Hancock v. City of Muskogee
• Federal Cases - 110 U.S. 347 (1884), Spring Val. Waterworks v. Schottler
• Federal Cases - 251 U.S. 182 (1919), 82, Branson v. Bush
• Federal Cases - 256 U.S. 129 (1921), 317, Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District
• Federal Cases - 266 U.S. 379 (1924), 33, Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Road Improvement District No. 3 of Sevier County, Arkansas
• Federal Cases - 274 U.S. 188 (1927), 38, Road Improvement District No. 1 of Franklin County,
• Federal Cases - 277 U.S. 160 (1928), 577, Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Miller County Highway & Bridge District
• California - 142 Cal. 686, L. A. 1153, Duncan v. Ramish
• California - 146 Cal. 290, L. A. 1296, Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. San Francisco Savings Union
• California - 146 Cal. 80, L. A. 1302, Southern California Railway Company v. Workman
• California - 166 Cal. 153, L. A. 3392, McNeil v. City of South Pasadena
• California - 169 Cal. 764, L. A. 3833, Schaffer v. Smith
• California - 170 Cal. 24, L. A. 3322, Spring Street Co. v. City of Los Angeles
• California - 176 Cal. 248, L. A. 3998, Wilson v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
• California - 195 Cal. 404, S. F. 10474, Rutledge v. City of Eureka
• California - 197 Cal. 456, S. F. 11165, City of Oakland v. Schenck
• California - 17 Cal.App. 646, Civ. 998, Los Angeles Pacific Co. v. Hubbard
• California - 59 Cal.App. 200, Civ. 3984, Federal Const. Co. v. Ensign
• Illinois - 100 N.E. 996 (Ill. 1913), City of Kankakee v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
• Missouri - 104 S.W. 67 (Mo. 1907), Heman Construction Co. v. Wabash Railroad Co.
• New Jersey - 83 A. 962 (N.J.L. 1912), New York Bay Railroad Company v. City of Newark
• New York - 127 A.D. 672, In re East 136th Street in City of New York
• Ohio - 10 Ohio St. 159 (Ohio 1859), Northern I. R. Co. v. Connelly