Goodrich v. Detroit
Citations
- 184 U.S. 432
- 22 S. Ct. 397
- 46 L. Ed. 627
- 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2283
Syllabus
<p>Where a statute providing for the opening of streets requires notice to the parties whose laud is to -be taken for the street, the fact that it makes no provision for giving notice to the owners of land liable to be assessed for the improvement, does not deprive such owners of their property without due process of law, and is not otherwise obnoxious to the Fourteenth Amendment.</p> <p>The interest of neighboring property owners, who may possibly thereafter be assessed for the benefit to their property accruing from opening a street, is too remote to require notice of such improvement, in which they have no direct interest.</p> <p>No notice is required to be given to individual property owners of a resolution fixing an assessment district and levying a gross amount thereon for benefits, where the statute provides for a hearing in relation to the proportion each piece of property shall bear to the whole cost of the improvement, and an opportunity is given to the owner of the land to be heard upon the question of the benefit derived by him from the improvement.</p> <p>The fact that certain parcel® of land condemned for the improvement are defectively described, is no defence to a proceeding to assess benefits upon other property.</p>
Judges: Brown, Harlan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Londoner v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court· 1908-06-01· cited 410×
- O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing CenterSupreme Court· 1980-06-23· cited 391×
- Elba Township v. Gratiot County Drain CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court· 2013-04-09· cited 100×
- Utley v. St. PetersburgSupreme Court· 1934-04-02· cited 57×
- Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. RistySupreme Court· 1928-04-09· cited 51×
- Nebraska Mid-State Reclamation District v. Hall CountyNebraska Supreme Court· 1950-02-24· cited 37×
- St. Louis & Kansas City Land Co. v. Kansas CitySupreme Court· 1916-06-05· cited 33×
- County of Riverside v. WhitlockCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1972-01-13· cited 24×
- Re Harper Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court· 1923-07-17· cited 24×
- Orr v. AllenS.D. Ohio· 1917-08-09· cited 14×
- Schaefer v. WerlingSupreme Court· 1903-02-23· cited 13×
- Eyde v. Lansing TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals· 1981-09-21· cited 9×
- Durkee v. City of BarreSupreme Court of Vermont· 1909-01-16· cited 8×
- State ex rel. Tuller v. SeehornSupreme Court of Missouri· 1912-12-10· cited 7×
- Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Drainage Dist. No. 8 of Shelby CountyS.D. Iowa· 1916-08-31· cited 7×
- Capital Freight Lines v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1962-07-30· cited 4×
- Mossmain Irrigation District v. Canyon Creek Ditch Co.Montana Supreme Court· 1931-05-12· cited 4×
- Posselius v. City of DetroitE.D. Michigan· 1930-11-06· cited 4×
- Fair Drain Taxation, Inc. v. City of St. Clair Shores, MichiganE.D. Michigan· 1963-07-16· cited 4×
- Horton v. City of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1977-05-10· cited 2×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Stuart v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals· 1878-06-18· cited 406×
- Spencer v. MerchantSupreme Court· 1888-04-02· cited 299×
- Williams v. EgglestonSupreme Court· 1898-05-02· cited 153×
- Comstock v. CrawfordSupreme Court· 1866-01-18· cited 63×
- Voigt v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court· 1900-03-27· cited 19×
- Board of Commissioners v. FahlorIndiana Supreme Court· 1892-10-12· cited 2×
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.