Harbor v. Deukmejian
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOSK, J.
In this case, we consider two issues of constitutional significance. The first relates to the limitation imposed by article IV, section 10 of the California Constitution on the Governor’s power to veto legislation, 1 and the second to the limitations placed on the Legislature by California Constitution, article IV, section 9, which provides that a “statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” 2
On June 15, 1984, the Legislature enacted a budget for the 1984-1985 fiscal year (Budget Act). (Stats. 1984, ch. 258, p. 874 et seq.) One item of the…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. ChadhaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Jessen Associates, Inc. v. BullockTexas Supreme Court · 1975
- Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of GovernmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- In Re RosenkrantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Raven v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Legislature v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.