Legal Opinion

Erskine v. Pyle

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 1927No. File No. 6488PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRice, J.

In this case, plaintiffs make original application to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus commanding the defendant, as secretary of state, to furnish plaintiffs a certified copy of Senate Bill No. 113, known as the General Appropriation Bill, for the biennium of 1927-1928. Plaintiffs have made proper application, tendered the stautory fee, and it is the duty of defendant to furnish the copy if the .bill has become a law, otherwise not. Defendant refuses to furnish a copy, for the reason that, on account of a message from the Governor returning the bill to the Senate (the house in which…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BarnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  2. Mills v. PorterMontana Supreme Court · 1924
  3. State ex rel. Jamison v. ForsythWyoming Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Delta Nat. Bank v. EasterbrookCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1904

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Link v. OlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  2. McAlester v. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  3. State ex rel. Boynton v. FrenchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API