Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

IN RE MUSKINGUM WATERSHED CONSERVANCY DISTRICT.

Supreme Court — Dismissal — No debatable constitutional question involved — Eminent domain — Appropriation by conservancy district — Interest on judgment — Runs only after title or possession taken — No right to take property until judgment paid — Section 19, Article I, Constitution.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., DAY, WILLIAMS, MYERS, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.

ZIMMERMAN, J., not participating.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE MUSKINGUM WATERSHED CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
(Oct 11, 1939)