Farrell v. West Chicago Park Commissioners
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Mr. JustiCE Shiras
delivered the opinion of the court.
' This case originated in proceedings to create and improve an avenue or thoroughfare known as Douglas boulevard, in the town of West Chicago.
The full history of those proceedings, contained in the statement of facts made by this court in the case of Lombard and others v. The West Chicago Park Commissioners, recently decided, renders it unnecessary to repeat them here. And the legal questions involved were so fully discussed in that case, and in French v. Barber Asphalt Co. and Wight v. Davidson, cognate cases decided at the present term of this court, that we are relieved from their further consideration.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois is Affirmed.
Dissent
Mr. Justice Harlan,
(with whom concurred Mr. Justioe White and Mr. - Justice McKenna) dissenting.
The controlling question in this case is the same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, Wight v. Davidson, ante, 371, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, ante, 389. For the reasons stated in my opinions in those cases, I dissent from the’opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
181 U.S. 404 (1901)
FARRELL
v.
WEST CHICAGO PARK COMMISSIONERS.
No. 201.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 18, 19, 1901. Decided April 29, 1901. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Mr. George W. Wilbur for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Robert A. Childs for defendants in error. Mr. Charles Hudson was on his brief.
MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.
This case originated in proceedings to create and improve an avenue or thoroughfare known as Douglas boulevard, in the town of West Chicago.
The full history of those proceedings, contained in the statement of facts made by this court in the case of Lombard and others v. The West Chicago Park Commissioners, recently decided, renders it unnecessary to repeat them here. And the legal questions involved were so fully discussed in that case, and in French v. Barber Asphalt Co. and Wight v. Davidson, cognate cases decided at the present term of this court, that we are relieved from their further consideration.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois is Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, (with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE McKENNA) dissenting.
The controlling question in this case is the same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, Wight v. Davidson, ante, 371, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, ante, 389. For the reasons stated in my opinions in those cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.