Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State Ex Rel. Oster v. Jorgenson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1965No. File 10273Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBiegelmeier, Judge

Art. XII, § 2 of our Constitution approved originally at the Constitutional Election in 1889 then read and now reads as follows:

*465"The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and for common schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one object, and shall require a two-thirds vote of all the members of each branch of the legislature."

This was the provision…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Babcock v. GoodrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  2. State ex rel. Payne v. ReevesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1918
  4. Hodges v. SnyderSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1920
  5. State ex rel. Reed v. Commissioners of Marion CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879

17 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