State v. McFall
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
We approach the consideration of the question here involved with the presumption that the section of the statute assailed is valid and constitutional. Tet, while the. presumption is in favor of the validity of the law, if the language of the statute is clear and the legislative intent manifest, and the act plainly conflicts with the Constitution, there is no room for presumption.
It is a declaration of commonplace law that courts will not hold legislative acts to be unconstitu*186tional unless satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, of their invalidity.
The defendant in this case having attacked the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- In Re RahrerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Baccus v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Ellis v. FrazierOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Union Fishermen's Co. v. ShoemakerOregon Supreme Court · 1920
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hickey v. RileyOregon Supreme Court · 1945
- State Ex Rel. Evans v. KozerOregon Supreme Court · 1925
- General Electric Credit Corp. v. State Tax CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- People v. KupusinacMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- State v. CombsOregon Supreme Court · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.