Loeffler v. City of Louisville

215 S.W.2d 535, 308 Ky. 629, 1948 Ky. LEXIS 1006
Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)·Decided November 30, 1948·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Van Sant, Commissioner

Affirming.

We will quote the facts and statement of the issue involved from appellant’s brief.

*630 “By ordinance 53, series 1946, which, was approved ¡by the Mayor on April 25, 1946, the City of Louisville ¡sought to annex certain adjacent property southeast of ¡the present boundary and lying roughly between Newiburg road, and Bardstown road. More than seventy ifive percent (75%) of the resident free holders of the ¡territory sought to be annexed remonstrated against the ¡annexation and this suit was filed by the appellant seeking to prevent the annexation.
“The City’s answer merely denied the material allegations of the petition. On the trial the jury found ifor the defendant and judgment was entered dismissing fhe petition. It is from that judgment that this appeal as taken.
“KBS 81.110(1) provides for proceedings such as¡ were instituted by appellant in this case, and KBS 81.-110(2) provides, in its material part:
“‘If the jury finds that seventy-five percent or ¡more of the resident free holders of the territory sought ¡to be annexed or stricken off have remonstrated, the annexation or reduction shall not take place, unless the jury finds from the evidence that a failure to annex or strike off will materially retard the prosperity of the city, and of the owners and inhabitants of the territory sought to be annexed or stricken off, in which case the annexation or reduct1’on shall take place notwithstanding the remonstrants.’ ” Under the quoted provision of this statute, the Court properly instructed the jury that seventy five percent (75%) or more resident free holders ¡of the territory sought to be annexed remonstrated, and ■directed the jury to find for the appellant unless they ¡believe from the evidence a failure to annex the territory will materially retard the prosperity of the City .-and of the owners and inhabitants of the territory sought to be annexed.

Appellant admits the evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the prosperity of the "City of Louisville would be retarded materially by fail¡ure to annex. But he confidently asserts that there is no ¡testimony in the record to support the finding that the ¡prosperity of the owners and inhabitants of the territory ¡sought to be annexed would materially, or in any way, be retarded by failure to annex. Thus we are asked to *631 declare that the evidence adduced on the trial fails, as a matter of law, to support the finding of the jury on this aspect of the case.

It was shown by the evidence that the territory in question now is receiving adequate electric, gas, and telephone services. The roads throughout the territory are in good condition and adequate for vehicle travel. Sewage disposal is adequate, although rentals for the-service exceed by fifty per centum the cost of like service-to the citizens of Louisville. At the present time water is being furnished to the territory by the City in adequate amounts, but this service like the sewer service-costs the users of water fifty per centum (50%) more-than it would if the territory should be annexed, and the-source of water supply upon which use of sewers depends-is merely temporary, as hereinafter will be pointed out. Appellant introduced testimony to the effect that the territory enjoys adequate police and fire protection, but the-proof on these points falls short of being conclusive of the ultimate facts in support of which it was introduced. The strongest evidence in support of appellant’s contention is that annexation to the City will increase the hazard of travel encountered by children going to and returning from school.

We will not lengthen this opinion by referring to the evidence in respect to conveniences and services to-the owners and inhabitants of property in the territory sought to be annexed, where annexation will not affect the situation one way or another. We will confine our remarks to the contentions in support of appellant’s, theory that the prosperity of such owners and inhabitants would be retarded and weigh them against the-factors which will increase the prosperity of such owners and inhabitants in an endeavor to determine whether there was any substantial evidentiary basis for the jury’s determination that failure to annex would materially retard.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Loeffler v. City of Louisville, 215 S.W.2d 535, 308 Ky. 629, 1948 Ky. LEXIS 1006 (Ky. 1948).

215 S.W.2d 535 (Loeffler v. City of Louisville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sullivan v. City of Paducah
547 S.W.2d 769 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1977)
MAYOR, COUNCILMEN, ETC. v. Dealers Transport Co.
343 S.W.2d 40 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1961)
Likins v. City of Clarkson
280 S.W.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1955)
Pfeiffer v. City of Louisville
240 S.W.2d 560 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1951)