Legal Opinion
Dorsky v. Brown
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided March 1, 1951No. 6 Div. 967PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice LIVINGSTON sufficiently states the facts and the point of law involved.
It is contended that Act No. 688, General Acts 1947, page 522, is unconstitutional under the last sentence of section 70 of the 1901 Constitution of Alabama, which provides that “No revenue bill shall be passed during the last five days of the session”, and that Act No. 688 was passed on the last day of the 1947 regular session of the legislature. The contention is without merit.
The title of Act No. 688 is as follows: “An Act To amend Section 613, Title 51, -Code of Alabama 1940,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Glass v. Prudential Ins. Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
- State ex rel. Troy v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Harris v. State Ex Rel. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- In Re Opinions of the JusticesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Woco Pep Co. of Montgomery v. ButlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rogers v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
- Sanford Service Co. v. City of AndalusiaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Taylor v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
- Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1953
- Hunt v. Chemical Waste ManagementSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.