Merger of sanitary districts (§ 21-117)—Virginia Decoded

Merger of sanitary districts

Any two or more sanitary districts heretofore or hereafter created in any county under the provisions of this article, may be merged into a single district by an order entered by the circuit court of such county, or the judge thereof in vacation, upon the petition of not less than fifty qualified voters residing within the boundaries of each of the districts desiring to be so merged, which order shall prescribe the metes and bounds and the name or other designation of the single district created by such merger. From and after the entry of such order, the governing body of such county shall, as to the single districts so created, have all the powers and duties, and be subject to all the conditions and limitations prescribed by § 21-118; and all funds then on hand to the credit of each of the districts so merged shall be merged into a single fund for the use and benefit of the consolidated district, unless otherwise ordered by the court or judge upon the hearing next herein provided for.Upon the filing of the petition, a hearing shall be had before the court or judge, after notice as provided by § 21-114, which notice shall require all interested parties to appear and show cause, if any they can, (1) why the funds then on hand to the credit of each of the merged districts should not be merged into a single fund for the purpose above mentioned; (2) why a special tax should not be levied on all the property within the limits of the consolidated district, subject to local taxation, sufficient to pay the interest and create a sinking fund for payment of the principal at maturity, of any then outstanding bonds theretofore issued by any one or more of the districts so merged.Upon the hearing, such order shall be made and entered as to the court or judge may seem equitable and proper, concerning the combination of the funds on hand to the credit of each of the districts so merged, and the levying of a special tax on all the taxable property within the limits of the consolidated district, for the purposes hereinabove mentioned; provided that such order shall preserve and protect the rights of the holders of any such outstanding bonds, whose rights, and interests shall not be limited or affected by any of the provisions of this section.

History

1942, p. 247; Michie Code 1942, § 1560s1.

Download

Court Decisions

. . . United States v. Benigno Montes-Pineda, A/K/A No. Benigno . . . (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 04/24/06)
. . . quot;) § 401(m)(2)(B), Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650, 675 (2003).* "[T]o require the . . .

United States v. Robert Nelson May (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 03/04/04)
. . . of Children Today Act of 2003, Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (the "PROTECT Act") altered . . .

United States v. Michael John Goossens (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 05/28/96)
. . . States, 503 U.S. 193, 202-03, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (holding that when an . . .

United States v. Henry Achiekwelu (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 05/01/97)
. . . States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). Since we conclude that . . .

United States v. Charles E. Jones, Iii, A/K/A Chuckie (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 12/22/06)
. . . 109-248, 120 Stat. 613 (2006); Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 652 (2003); Pub.L. No. 107-273, 116 . . .

United States v. Arthur Frank Harrison, Jr. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 10/05/94)
. . . - U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992).6IV. . . .

. . . United States v. Anthony D. Barber, United States of America . . . (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 08/23/96)
. . . States, 503 U.S. 193, 200-03, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1119-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) ("[A] sentencing . . .

Paris v. Com. (COA, 05/08/01)
. . . quot; Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 2268 (1997) (citations and . . .

Nystrom v. TREX CO., INC. (District Court, E.D. Virginia, 05/16/08)
. . . Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 . . .

. . . Rebecca Willis v. Town of Marshall, North Carolina, Rebecca . . . (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 10/07/05)
. . . quot; Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) . . .

Court opinions are provided by CourtListener, which is developed by the Free Law Project.