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)

MUSKINGUM WATERSHED CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. CLOW ET AL. AND THE CITTZENS NATIONAL BANK OF MARIETTA ET AL., APPELLANTS. REPORTER'S NOTE — Appeals of Kent S. Clow and James B. Clow Sons were dismissed on October 18, 1937, on application of said appellants.

Supreme Court — Dismissals — No debatable constitutional question involved — Conservancy Act — Section 6828-1 et seq., General Code — Hearing by conservancy court upon appraisals and exceptions — Estimated cost determined less than benefits, and amended appraisal report confirmed — Landowner not prevented from protecting property rights — Section 1, Article I, Constitution — Remedy not denied or property rights taken without due process — Section 16, Article I, Constitution — No deprivation of right to present value of property and evidence of benefits — Inviolability of and compensation for property — Section 19, Article I, Constitution — No deprivation of property without due process — Articles 5 and 14, Amendments to U.S. 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., MATTHIAS, ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAMS, MYERS and GORMAN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CONSERVANCY DIST. v. CLOW
(Oct 20, 1937)