State Ex Rel. Pollock v. Becker
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. The Secretary of State refused to accept these referendum petitions for the sole reason that Senate Bills Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 contained the “peace, health and safety clause.” Relator contends that this action was arbitrary, and that this court must determine from the entire bills whether the peace, health and safety is involved.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. The Secretary of State refused to accept these referendum petitions for the sole reason that Senate Bills Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 contained the “peace, health and safety clause.” Relator contends that this action was arbitrary, and that this court must determine from the entire bills whether the peace, health and safety is involved. State ex rel. v. Sullivan, 224 S. W. 327; State ex rel. v. Roach, 230 Mo. 435; State ex rel. v. Meath, 84 Wash. 302; In Re Hoffman, 155 Cal. 114; McClure v.- Nye, 22 Cal. App. -248; Rigdon v. San Diego, 30 Cal. App. 107; Riley v. Carico, 27 Okla. 33; Beal v.…
1DissentHIGrBEE, J.
(dissenting). — I respectfully dissent from the opinion filed in this case by our learned brother Woodson. It is based solely upon the opinion of Graves^ J., in State ex rel. Westhues v. Sullivan, 283 Mo. 547. That was an action instituted by the Prosecuting Attorney of Cole County against the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General of the State, restraining them from submitting the Workmen’s Compensation Act under the Eeferendum Amendment, Section 57, Article IY, of the Constitution. All of the judges were agreed on certain points: (1) that the prosecuting attorney had no authority to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kadderly v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Caseday v. LindstromOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Gentile v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
- Biggs v. McBrideOregon Supreme Court · 1889
- Oklahoma City v. ShieldsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.