Hickel v. Cowper

How courts have described this case

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

• holding funds that require “[f]urther legislative appropriations” are “available for appropriation” and thus are sweepable
• holding funds that require “[f]urther legislative appropriations” are “available for appropriation” and thus are sweepable
• noting that deference to “legislature’s interpretation of the constitutional terms at issue in this case . . . is at most . . . a single tool for use by this court in interpreting the constitution”
• noting “some [restricted funds within the general fund] remain ‘available for appropriation’ within” context of subsection 17(d)
• noting “some [restricted funds within the general fund] remain ‘available for appropriation’ within” context of subsection 17(d)
• “We are not vested with the authority to add missing terms or hypothesize differently worded provisions in order to reach a particular result.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).