Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Porter

Citations

• 210 U.S. 177
• 28 S. Ct. 647
• 52 L. Ed. 1012
• 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1502

Syllabus

<p>It is within the legislative power of a State to create special taxing districts and to charge the cost of local improvements, in whole or in part, upon the property in said district either according to valuation or area, and the legislature may also classify the owners of property abutting on the improvement made and those whose property lies a certain distance back of it, and if all property owners have an equal opportunity to be heard when the assessment is made the owners of the “back lying” property are not deprived of their property without due process of law or denied the equal protection of the laws.</p> <p>The Barrett paving law of Indiana, the' constitutionality of which was sustained by this court as to abutting property owners in Shœffer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516; Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310, sustained also as to back lying property owners following Voris v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., 163 Indiana, 599.</p> <p>38 Ind. App. 226, affirmed.</p>