Legal Opinion

Clas v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1928PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

The Department of Agriculture is an agency of the state, and the duties of the commissioner are clearly defined by statute. In the expenditure of the public moneys he is strictly limited to the sums appropriated by the legislature for a given purpose. No discretionary power is *433vested in him to exceed such appropriations. This is the law not only in this state but elsewhere, and it is incumbent not only upon the department to take cognizance thereof and to act in accordance therewith, but every individual or corporation transacting business with the department is legally governed thereby,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ritter v. Harrisburg School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Lord v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
  3. Pierce v. Board of EducationNew York Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Union County Park CommissionNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
  2. Balen v. FranklinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1959
  4. Warburton v. Tacoma School District No. 10Washington Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Warburton v. Tacoma School District No. 10Washington Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API