Legal Opinion

Kull v. Michigan State Apple Commission

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1941No. Docket No. 51, Calendar No. 41,086PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining defendants from enforcing Act No. 87, Pub. Acts 1939 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 5169-1 et seq., Stat. Ann. 1940 Cum. Supp. § 12.1220 [1] et seq.), on the ground that the act is unconstitutional. Appellants ’ brief presents but one question, to wit: Is the body of Act No. 87, Pub. Acts 1939, fairly within the title of the act? The trial judge held that the act was invalid in the respect noted, i. e., it was violative of the Michigan Constitution, art. 5, § 21; but as against all other grounds of unconstitutionality urged by plaintiffs the trial court…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. v. McLeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. C. F. Smith Co. v. FitzgeraldMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Young v. City of Ann ArborMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  4. C. v. Floyd Fruit Co. v. Florida Citrus CommissionSupreme Court of Florida · 1937
  5. State Ex Rel. Graham v. EnkingIdaho Supreme Court · 1938

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. People v. KevorkianMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Mooahesh v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. State v. F. H. Vahlsing, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
  4. Beacon Club v. Kalamazoo County SheriffMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Rivera Ayala v. Corte de Distrito de San JuanSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1943

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API