Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Hyland v. Baumhauer
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 20, 1942No. 1 Div. 416, 417PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FOSTER, Justice.
1. In answer to your first inquiry, we agree with you that the Act passed over the Governor’s veto May 26, 1931, to which you refer in that inquiry is a local act under section 110, Constitution, since it is a designation of Mobile in substance as the only city to which it may ever apply, and is therefore subject to section 106, Constitution, if it is not included in section 104(18). Whether it violates section 104(18) is not now considered. Mobile County v. State ex rel. Cammack, 240 Ala. 37, 197 So. 6.
The provisions of this Act to the extent that they appear in the Code of…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Montgomery v. State ex rel. EnslenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Williams v. SchwarzSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Harrington v. State Ex Rel. Van HayesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Touart v. State ex rel. CallaghanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Lacey v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1915
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Watkins v. Scott Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- Burns v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944
- Alexander v. State Ex Rel. CarverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
- Chism v. Jefferson CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 2006
- Heiliger v. City of SheldonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1945
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.