Legal Opinion

Porten Sullivan Corp. v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 6, 1990No. 93, September Term, 1989PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ADKINS, Judge.

Among the several provisions of Article III, § 29 of the Maryland Constitution is the declaration that “every Law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in its title.” This case involves the “one-subject” mandate. We shall hold that Chapter 244, Acts of 1989, violates that constitutional command. We shall further hold that the measure’s “ethics” provisions are severable from its “tax” provisions and that the latter survive the constitutionally required demise of the former.

I

Chapter 244 is an emergency measure that became…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BarnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  2. Allied American Mutual Fire Insurance v. Commissioner of Motor VehiclesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  3. Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
  4. Neuenschwander v. Washington Suburban Sanitary CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  5. Brown v. FirestoneSupreme Court of Florida · 1980

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Ashton v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
  2. Kincaid v. MangumWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Montrose Christian School Corp. v. WalshCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  4. City of Brookfield v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Board of Supervisors of Elections v. SmallwoodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992

13 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