|
<br />002341,
<br />
<br />67
<br />
<br />~
<br />~:o
<br />
<br />116 N.E;2d 644 (1949); Commonwealth v. Atlas, 244 Nass. 78,
<br />138 N.E. 243; Spieg1e v. Beach Haven, 46 N.J. 479, 218
<br />J\.2d 129 (1966).
<br />
<br />41See, Lakeshore Development Corp. v. Planning Co~mission of
<br />Village of Oconomowoc Lake; 12 wis. 2d 560, 107 N.W.2d
<br />590 (1961). '
<br />
<br />4.2See, e.g., Pennyt'on Homes, 'Inc. v. Planiling Bd. Qf Stanhope,
<br />78"N.J. super. 588, 189 A.2d 838 (1~63).
<br />
<br />43See generally, 3 ANDERSON 919.14 at 414, 415; Mefford v. City
<br />"of Tulare, 102 Ca1. App. 2d 919, 228 P.2d 847 (1951) (Approval
<br />by engineering department to determine adequacy of drainage);
<br />Langbein v. Planning Bd. of Stamford, 145 Conn. 674, 146 A.2d
<br />412 (1958) (City engineer tOo revie\<l sewer and water systems).
<br />
<br />""Hornbeck v. Towner, 14 App. Div. 2d 646, 218 N;Y.S.2d 270,
<br />and 14 App. Div. 715, 218 N.Y.S.2d 532 (1961): Gulino Constr.
<br />Corp. v. Hilleboe, 167 N.Y.S.2d 787 (S. Ct., Onondaga Co.
<br />1956) . '
<br />
<br />"SSee, e.g., Rounds v. Bd. of Water and SewerCom'rs. 347 14ass.
<br />40, 196 N.E.2d 209 (1964).
<br />
<br />"SMefford v. City of Tulare, 102 Cal. App. 2d 919, 228 P.2d
<br />847 (1951).
<br />
<br />"'See generally, 52 A C.J.B., Levees and Flood Control, 912 at
<br />797, and cases cited therein.
<br />
<br />"OE.g., Johnson v. Reasor, 392 S.W.2d 54 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965)
<br />(water); Annat., Right" to Compel Municipality to Extend its
<br />Water System, 48 A.L.R. 2d 1222 (1956). Strauchv. City
<br />of Scranton, 353 Pa. 10, 44 A.2d 258 (1945) (drainage).
<br />
<br />"9See 2 ANTIEAU, MmnCIPAL CORPORATION LAW 9 11.18 at 78 et seq.
<br />Tf968). See, e.g., Clements v. Town of Carrolltown, 216
<br />Miss. 859, 63 S.2d 398 (1953).
<br />
<br />SOSee, e.g., Haferkamp v. City of Rock Hill (Missouri) 316 S.W.2d
<br />620 (1958) in which a court found that a municipality was not
<br />necessarily liable for inoreascd surface runoff. Missouri has
<br />adopted a "common enemy rule f.or surface \'laters which permits
<br />an individual to protect himself against flooding although
<br />the protective measures damage others." For a brief disoussion
<br />or common law rules of liability, see Appendix D of Part
<br />III. -
<br />
<br />t!;l:f~j
<br />
<br />SISee, e.g., Perry v. City of Wichita, 174 Kan. 264, 255 P.2d
<br />667 (1953) and oases oited in 2 ANTIEAU, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
<br />LAWlil1.18, n.17, at 85 (1968).
<br />
<br />S2steiger v. City of San Diego, 163 Cal. App. 2d 110, 329 p.2d
<br />94 (1958); City Counoi1 of Augusta v. Thorp, 103 Ga. 431, 119
<br />S.E.2d 595 (1961).
<br />
<br />
|