Burgess v. Rudolph

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that vesting of title under the Declaration of Takings Act is “subject to a right of the former land owner to challenge the taking as not being for the prescribed statutory purpose”
• holding that vesting of title under the Declaration of Takings Act is “subject to a right of the former land owner to challenge the taking as not being for the prescribed statutory purpose”
• rejecting the appellee’s argument that a notice of appeal was defective because “[t]he mistake was such as could have been made by a clerk or stenographer” and “affected no substantial rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).