Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Kahn v. Tazwell
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided February 24, 1928PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
It is not essential that all the matters or items embraced in an act should be mentioned in the title. If the provisions of the act are reasonably connected with and germane to the subject expressed in the title, there would be no repugnancy to Article IV, Section 20, of the Constitution: 1 Lewis’ Sutherland on Stat. Const. (2 ed.), § 18; Pacific Elevator Co. v. Portland, 65 Or. 349, 384 (133 Pac. 72, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 363).
The Insurance Act provides for the appointment of an insurance commissioner and prescribes his powers and duties. It prescribes the conditions and requirements in…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Home Ins. Co. v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Railroad Company v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Bagdon v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Hauenstein & Bermeister, Inc. v. Met-Fab Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Reeves v. Chem Industrial CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1972
- Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
- Idaho Gold Dredging Co. v. BalderstonIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
- In Re Idleman's CommitmentOregon Supreme Court · 1933
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.