Morin v. Harrell
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 Article II, section 19 of our constitution provides that “[n]o bill shall embrace more than one subject” and requires that the subject “shall be *228expressed in the title.”1 Violation of either the single subject rule or the subject in title rule exposes a law to constitutional challenge.2 However, such a challenge is precluded when the allegedly constitutionally infirm legislation has been subsequently reenacted or amended pursuant to properly titled legislation. Such amendment or reenactment cures the article II, section 19 defect.3
J.M. Johnson, J.
*228¶2 In the present case, Clarence and Hazel…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Washington Federation of State Employees v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Citizens v. MurphyWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- STATE EX REL.(CAT) v. MurphyWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Durland v. San Juan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- Post v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- Post v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- Nickell v. SOUTHVIEW HOMEOWNERS ASS'NCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Key Development Investment, LLC v. Port of TacomaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.