Via v. State Commission on Conservation & Development
296 U.S. 549, 56 S. Ct. 245
Opinion
The decree is affirmed on the ground that appellant has an adequate remedy at law. Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616, 623; Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 373, 375, 376; Gaines v. Nicholson, 9 How. 356, 364—365; Wehrman v. Conkling, 155 U. S. 314, 326.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Via v. State Commission on Conservation & Development, 296 U.S. 549, 56 S. Ct. 245 (1935).
296 U.S. 549 (Via v. State Commission on Conservation & Development) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Tin Yan
355 P.2d 25 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1960)
Inland Steel Products Co. v. MPH Manufacturing Corp.
25 F.R.D. 238 (N.D. Illinois, 1959)