Skip to main content
· 11/27/1903

City of Denver v. Porter

Citations

  • 126 F. 288
  • 61 C.C.A. 168
  • 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4311

Syllabus

<p>1. Fires — Spread—Ownership op Property — Railroad—Liability.</p> <p>Where a railroad company owned a tract of unplatted low land, which was not used for railroad purposes, and permitted the city to use the land as a public dumping ground, the railroad retaining no substantial control over the conduct of the work, and no fires were set out or maintained in the dump with the railroad’s consent or for its benefit, the railroad’s ownership of the ground, or the fact that on one occasion it had made suggestions as to the filling, and had twice assisted in subduing fires which had broken out in the dump, were insufficient to render the railroad liable for damages to plaintiff’s building from fire communicated from a fire originating in the dump.</p> <p>2. Same — Nuisance.</p> <p>The collection of refuse or waste materials of a city, and the deposit thereof by the city authorities on land with the consent of the owner, is the proper exercise of a municipal function, and hence the maintenance of such dump is not of itself a nuisance.</p> <p>8. Same — Municipal Corporations — Gathering Repuse — Powers—Ministerial Functions.</p> <p>The gathering of refuse and waste by a city, and the establishment, maintenance, and operation of dumping grounds for its ultimate disposal, under the direction of the officers of the city health department, is a duty of local or municipal concern, not performed in the exercise of any governmental function; and hence the city is liable for the negligence of its officers and agents engaged in the performance of such work.</p> <p>4. Same — Local Laws — Federal Courts — Application.</p> <p>Whether a municipal corporation in a state is responsible for negligence of its officers in any stated ease is a matter of local law, which it is the duty of the federal courts within such state to follow, when made manifest by legislative action or the decisions of the highest state court.</p> <p>5. Same — Instructions.</p> <p>Where, in an action to recover dam

How courts have described this case

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

  • rejecting government's request for lifetime supervised release \as too severe [and] inhibitory of rehabilitation\ in a distribution of child pornography case, and instead imposing a sentence of five years' supervised release
  • rejecting governmentʹs request for lifetime supervised release ʺas too severe [and] inhibitory of rehabilitationʺ in a distribution of child pornography case, and instead imposing a sentence of five yearsʹ supervised release

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.