Legal Opinion

Hendricks v. State Ex Rel. Northwest Indiana Crime Commission, Inc.

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1964No. 30,487Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion

Myers, J.

— I disagree with the majority opinion for the reason that it has completely misinterpreted the plain meaning of the Indiana Constitution and fallen into a murky morass of semantics which has utterly twisted the true interpretation of certain sections thereof. It is agreed that Section 14 of Article 5 is the principal and most important part of the Indiana Constitution to be interpreted herein. We need not repeat it as it has been set forth in full in the majority opinion. It proceeds to spell out exactly what happens when the Governor receives a bill passed by the…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. The Pocket Veto CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Hendricks v. State Ex Rel. Northwest Indiana Crime Commission, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Hawaiian Airlines, Ltd. v. Public Utilities CommissionHawaii Supreme Court · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API