 Jensen184 the supreme court upheld the validity of the act of 1905185 against the objection that it authorized the taking of private property without due process of law and for a private purpose.  Studies in the Social Sciences - 51. lappuseautors: University of Minnesota - 1915Pilnskats - Par šo grāmatu
 | Oregon. Supreme Court, William Wallace Thayer, Joseph Gardner Wilson, Thomas Benton Odeneal, Julius Augustus Stratton, William Henry Holmes, Reuben S. Strahan, George Henry Burnett, Robert Graves Morrow, James W. Crawford, Frank A. Turner, Bellinger, Charles Byron - 1907 - 742 lapas
...p. 164. It is earnestly insisted that the law is unconstitutional and void because it provides for the taking of private property without due process of law and for private purposes. A similar law was held constitutional in Towns v. Klamath County, 33 Or. 225 (53... | |
 | University of Minnesota - 1915 - 280 lapas
...opinion.1ss In the case of Miller v. Jensen124 the supreme court upheld the validity of the act of 1905128 against the objection that it authorized the taking...declared unconstitutional in that year in State v. Rockford.1S6 The court pointed out that the county drainage act had been held public in character and... | |
 | United States. Tax Court - 1958 - 1368 lapas
...hence are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as being the taking of private property without due process of law and for public use without just compensation." We think that such contentions are without merit. In Brushaber... | |
 | Wisconsin. Supreme Court, Abram Daniel Smith, Philip Loring Spooner, Obadiah Milton Conover, Frederic King Conover, Frederick William Arthur, Frederick C. Seibold - 1891 - 764 lapas
...owner of the water-power created by the improvements, that act was unconstitutional and void, as taking private property without due process of law and for a private purpose. Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 145 ; 9 id. 547 ; Smith v. Rochester, 92 NY 463 ; Cooper v. Williams, 4 Ohio,... | |
| |
