Herdman v. Cann

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a law was not special where it was applicable to only one county when it was enacted but where other counties were expected to meet the criteria to join the class in the future
• holding that a law was not special where it was applicable to only one county when it was enacted but where other counties were expected to meet the criteria to join the class in the future
• holding that a statute that applied to any county with a population greater than 260,000 was not a special law even though it applied to only one county at the time of enactment, where other counties were rapidly approaching that population size
• holding that a statute that applied to any county with a population greater than 260,000 was not a special law even though it applied to only one county at the time of enactment, where other counties were rapidly approaching that population size

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).