Legal Opinion

Hickman v. Wright

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1918PublishedCited by 28 opinions

FROM DAVIDSON. Error to tlie Criminal Court of Davidson County.— Hon. J. D. B. De Bow, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKinney

This suit involves the constitutionality of chapter 47 of the Acts of 1917, known as the “anti-fee hill.”

The lower court held the act to be unconstitutional, and the case has been brought to this court by appeal.

The caption and the first two sections of the act are as follows:

“An act to be entitled, ‘An act fixing the salaries of certain county officials in the state, to wit: The several clerks and masters of the chancery courts, clerks of the various county and probate, circuit, criminal and special courts, county trustee, register of deeds and sheriffs; to provide for the disposition of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Palmer v. Southern Express Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1913
  2. J. W. Kelly & Co. v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1910
  3. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. BoiceIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Heiskell v. LoweTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Samuelson v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Hunter v. ConnerTennessee Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Austin v. Memphis Publishing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Peay v. NolanTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Boarman v. JaynesTennessee Supreme Court · 2003
  5. State ex rel. Weldon v. ThomasonTennessee Supreme Court · 1919

23 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