Carstens v. DeSellem
Citations
- 82 Wash. 643
- 144 P. 934
Syllabus
<p>Statutes — Titles and Subjects. Constitution, art. 2, § 19, providing that no bill shall embrace more than one subject, expressed in its title, is not violated by 8 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3000-1 et seg., entitled an act creating a department of agriculture, providing for the organization and administration thereof, defining the powers and duties of its officers and employees in relation to agriculture, horticulture, live stock, dairying, state fairs, foods, drinks, drugs, oils, and other kindred subjects, etc., since the object is to create a department of agriculture and define its duties, and it is immaterial that duties are imposed that do not strictly apply to agriculture.</p> <p>Statutes — Amendatory Acts — Titles and Subjects. Const., art.’ 2, § 37, providing that no act shall be revised or amended by mere reference to its title and the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length, does not apply to an act that does not purport to be amendatory, but is an independent act directly repealing certain enumerated sections.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Due Process of Law — Notice — Reasonableness — Right of Appeal to Courts. The horticultural act, requiring only five days’ notice before inspectors may enter and cut down diseased orchard trees, is not in contravention of the due process clause of the constitution in that five days is an unreasonable time, nor in that' no right of appeal is given from the decisions of the inspectors; in view of 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3000-9, providing that any person aggrieved by any act of an inspector may appeal to the commissioners, who shall forthwith proceed to hear and determine such appeal and report his decision to appellant and the inspector, which decision shall not preclude an appeal or proper action in the courts in cases where such rights would otherwise exist.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Legislative Powers — Delesation — Administrative Duties — Police Power. The horticultural law, Rem. & Bal. Code,
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- police power extends to protecting agricultural property from contagious disease and pests
- police power extends to protecting agricultural property from contagious disease and pests
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gose
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State ex rel. Brislawn v. MeathWashington Supreme Court· 1915-03-06· cited 90×
- Vail v. SeaborgWashington Supreme Court· 1922-05-11· cited 48×
- State v. Bowen & Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1915-06-09· cited 42×
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1979-03-29· cited 38×
- Cawsey v. BrickeyWashington Supreme Court· 1914-12-17· cited 37×
- Anderson v. PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1952-07-11· cited 35×
- IDAHO STATE AFL-CIO v. LeroyIdaho Supreme Court· 1986-01-29· cited 33×
- State ex rel. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Public Service CommissionWashington Supreme Court· 1917-01-13· cited 25×
- Coelho v. TruckellCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1935-08-29· cited 23×
- Spokane Hotel Co. v. YoungerWashington Supreme Court· 1920-12-11· cited 22×
- State v. MelcherCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1982-12-09· cited 14×
- Hook v. Lincoln County Noxious Weed Control BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2012-01-26· cited 14×
- Hook v. LINCOLN CTY. NOXIOUS WEED CONTROLCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2012-01-26· cited 13×
- City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387Court of Appeals of Washington· 1980-11-24· cited 10×
- Haynes v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court· 1914-12-28· cited 10×
- Skinner v. CoyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1939-05-05· cited 9×
- State v. WackerArizona Supreme Court· 1959-10-07· cited 8×
- Los Angeles Berry Growers' Co-Operative Ass'n v. HuntleyWashington Supreme Court· 1915-02-13· cited 1×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Health Department v. Rector of Trinity ChurchNew York Court of Appeals· 1895-02-26· cited 135×
- State v. Mountain Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1913-10-06· cited 89×
- Spokane Grain & Fuel Co. v. LyttakerWashington Supreme Court· 1910-06-16· cited 74×
- State ex rel. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. v. Railroad CommissionWashington Supreme Court· 1909-03-01· cited 32×
- Copland v. PirieWashington Supreme Court· 1901-12-06· cited 29×
- City of Seattle v. BartoWashington Supreme Court· 1903-02-25· cited 24×
- Hurst v. WarnerMichigan Supreme Court· 1894-09-27· cited 24×
- State ex rel. Lindsey v. DerbyshireWashington Supreme Court· 1914-04-25· cited 23×
- State v. Asotin CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1914-05-18· cited 17×
- Maxwell v. LancasterWashington Supreme Court· 1914-09-19· cited 16×
- Aylmore v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court· 1907-12-10· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.