Legal Opinion

Carmack v. Director, Missouri Department of Agriculture

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided May 27, 1997No. 79644PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROBERTSON, Judge.

“No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” Mo. Const, art. Ill, sec. 23 (“section 23”). In this case we consider whether the general assembly violated section 23 when a bill bearing the title “relating to economic development” contained, among its 102 statutory amendments or additions, amendments to section 267.610, RSMo, changing the indemnification paid to owners upon the destruction of their livestock carrying highly contagious or communicable or infectious disease.

We have jurisdiction. Mo. Const, art. V, sec. 3. We…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. BluntSupreme Court of Missouri · 1990
  2. Hammerschmidt v. Boone CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
  3. State v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
  4. Carmack v. SaundersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Missouri Health Care Ass'n v. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
  2. Fust v. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
  3. C.C. Dillon Co. v. City of EurekaSupreme Court of Missouri · 2000
  4. Rentschler v. NixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 2010
  5. Stroh Brewery Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997

18 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