Legal Opinion

Questions Propounded by the Governor in re Proposed Amendments to the Constitution and Initiative and Referendum Measures

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 15, 1911No. 7438PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Mr. Harry B. Tedrow and Mr. John II. Gabriel argued for the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

2Per curiam

The opinion of the court is in response to a communication and interrogatories from the governor:

The questions propounded to the court by the chief executive are the same as those heretofore submitted by the house of representatives, and which we answered In re House Resolution No. 10. As the purpose of the governor is thereby accomplished, father answer is unnecessary. Our jurisdiction, however, is not properly invoiced by this request. The governor, under our constitution, has a duty to perform with reference to' legislation, in that he may approve or veto an enacted bill. But the…

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill 91S-1005Supreme Court of Colorado · 1991
  2. In Re House Resolution No. 12Supreme Court of Colorado · 1931
  3. In re Interrogatories Proposed by the Governor Concerning the Moffat Tunnel BillSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
  4. In Re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill 91S-1005Supreme Court of Colorado · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API