Heidel v. Board of County Commissioners
Citations
- 106 Kan. 382
- 187 P. 866
- 1920 Kan. LEXIS 524
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>I. Highway — Road Benefit District — Petition Therefor Sufficient — Withdrawal of Names on Petition. In an action to enjoin the establishment of a road benefit district under Laws of 1917, ch. 265, as amended by Laws of 1919, ch. 246, held, upon the statement of facts in the opinion, a sufficient number of the petitioners for the improvement had not withdrawn their names from the petition at the time the board of commissioners adopted the resolution establishing the district.</p> <p>2. Same — Petition for Road Benefit District — Time in Which Petitioners May Withdraw Their Names. The statutory provision that thirty days after the filing of a petition with the board of commissioners no signer thereon shall be permitted to withdraw his name therefrom, (Laws of 1919, ch. 246, § 1,) is construed, and held not to give to the petitioners the absolute right for thirty days after the petition is filed to withdraw their -names, if the board, in compliance with the provisions of the statute, has already acted upon the petition.</p> <p>3. Same. The statute referred to, in lieu of a remonstrance or protest, provides for a ten days’ notice of a hearing before the board; until such hearing the board has no authority to make any order affecting the merits of the petition, but when the hearing has been held, the board has authority to act, unless in the meantime a sufficient number of the signers have withdrawn their names from the petition.</p> <p>4. Same — Resident Landowners Entitled to be Heard in Opposition to the Improvement. At the hearing before the board a minority, however small, of the resident landowners of the proposed road district have a right to be heard in opposition to the improvement; and their objections, no matter in what form presented — whether by a written remonstrance, or orally- — are entitled to due consideration. But their objections and arguments are not controlling upon the board.</p> <p>5. Same — Petition for Road Bene
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- court determined that under the Michigan insurance code the deposited securities were general assets held in trust for the benefit of all policyholders and creditors of defendant’s insurer
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Marshall, Porter, West
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.