In Re Lee
Citations
- 168 P. 53
- 64 Okla. 310
- 1917 OK 458
- 1917 Okla. LEXIS 654
Syllabus
<p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p> <p>1.Constitutional Law — Denial of Justice— Docket Fees — Statute—“Sale or Denial of Justice and Bight.”</p> <p>Section 5, ch. 87, Session Laws 1915, imposing a docket fee of $25 in each cause filed in the Supreme Court, to be collected and recoverable as other costs, and providing for an advance payment to the clerk of $40, is not a sale or denial of justice and right within the meaning of section 6, art. 2, of the Constitution (Williams’, sec. 14).</p> <p>2. Staitates —■ Subject and Title — Constitutional Provisions.</p> <p>Chapter 87, Session Laws 1916, does not embrace more than one subject within the meaning of section 57, art. 5, of the Constitution (Williams’, sec 147).</p> <p>3. Statutes — Amendment — Constitutional Provisions.</p> <p>Section 5, ch. 87, Session Laws 1915, is not in conflict with that portion of section 57, art. 5, of the Constitution (Williams’, sec. 147), which declares that: “No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall be reenacted and published at length.”</p> <p>4. Statutes —1 House of Representatives — Revenue Bill — Constitutional Provisions -v-“Bill for Raising Revenue.”</p> <p>■Chapter 87, Session Laws 1915, is not a bill for raising revenue, which, under section 33, art. 5, of the Constitution (Williams’, sec. 95), must originate in the House of Representatives.</p> <p>Sharp, C. J., and Brett, J., dissenting.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- distinguishing a fee from a tax on the basis that a fee is designed to compensate the government whereas a tax is designed to raise revenue
- distinguishing a fee from a tax on the basis that a fee is designed to compensate the government whereas a tax is designed to raise revenue
- distinguishing a fee from a tax on the basis that a fee is designed to compensate the government whereas a tax is designed to raise revenue
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Miley, Sharp, Brett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
40 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- LeCroy v. HanlonTexas Supreme Court· 1986-07-02· cited 215×
- Thayer v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1980-06-17· cited 74×
- Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1975-11-14· cited 71×
- In Re Initiative Petition No. 314Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1980-11-25· cited 71×
- Matter of RichSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1979-12-18· cited 58×
- Calvey v. DaxonSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2000-03-14· cited 57×
- King v. KingWashington Supreme Court· 2007-12-06· cited 57×
- Wall v. MaroukSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2013-06-04· cited 53×
- Green v. Siegel, Barnett & SchutzSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1996-12-31· cited 50×
- Doe v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-07-31· cited 48×
- In re the Marriage of KingWashington Supreme Court· 2007-12-06· cited 47×
- Pigg v. BrockmanIdaho Supreme Court· 1957-07-18· cited 41×
- C. v. C.Supreme Court of Delaware· 1974-04-19· cited 36×
- Tucker v. TuckerSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1964-04-14· cited 36×
- Bond v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1948-03-30· cited 36×
- Barzellone v. PresleySupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2005-11-29· cited 35×
- Wegleitner v. SattlerSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1998-08-05· cited 32×
- Special Indemnity Fund v. FarmerSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1945-02-06· cited 32×
- NAIFEH v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSIONSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2017-08-10· cited 32×
- Mehdipour v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONSSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2004-03-30· cited 29×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People ex rel. Drake v. MahaneyMichigan Supreme Court· 1865-10-28· cited 427×
- Northern Counties Trust v. SearsOregon Supreme Court· 1895-10-07· cited 57×
- Henderson v. State ex rel. StoutIndiana Supreme Court· 1894-01-25· cited 52×
- Lommen v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1896-06-19· cited 52×
- Adams v. CorristonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1862-07-15· cited 35×
- Hays v. C. C. & H. Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1910-03-31· cited 8×
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.