Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Hull

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that adding a new object of taxation to an appropriations bill did not vitally alter the substance of the bill because \[r]aising and spending revenue are at the heart of an appropriations bill\
• holding that adding a new object of taxation to an appropriations bill did not vitally alter the substance of the bill because \[r]aising and spending revenue are at the heart of an appropriations bill\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).