Kerby v. Luhrs

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the separate amendment rule was “intended to prevent the pernicious practice of ‘logrolling’ in the submission of a constitutional amendment”
• recognizing the separate amendment rule was “intended to prevent the pernicious practice of ‘log- rolling’ in the submission of a constitutional amendment”
• declaring, after finding no interrelatedness among the provisions in question, that voters would \have widely different opinions\ on the amendment
• declaring, after finding no interrelatedness among the provisions in question, that voters would “have widely different opinions” on the amendment
• explaining that written instruments “are to be construed in the light of their purpose, and this is particularly applicable to Constitutions, which are by necessity general in their nature, and presumably intended to remain in force for a long period of time”
• collecting additional cases from North Dakota, Iowa, Washington, Mississippi, and Idaho

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

60 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization
  California Supreme Court· 1978-09-22· cited 542×
• Brosnahan v. Brown
  California Supreme Court· 1982-09-02· cited 169×
• Fair Political Practices Commission v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 1979-08-23· cited 134×
• Loontjer v. Robinson
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2003-10-24· cited 100×
• In Re Initiative Petition No. 344, State Question No. 630
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1990-09-17· cited 92×
• In Re Initiative Petition No. 314
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1980-11-25· cited 71×
• Bellman v. San Francisco High School District
  California Supreme Court· 1938-07-26· cited 70×
• In Re Initiative Petition No. 360
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1994-07-19· cited 58×
• Tilson v. Mofford
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1987-06-02· cited 57×
• Renck v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1947-12-01· cited 56×
• City of Raton v. Sproule
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1967-06-19· cited 53×
• Bennett v. Napolitano
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2003-12-04· cited 52×
• Burrell v. Mississippi State Tax Com'n
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1988-08-10· cited 52×
• Fugina v. Donovan
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1960-09-09· cited 48×
• City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1968-03-28· cited 46×
• Moore v. Shanahan
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1971-06-12· cited 46×
• Hootch Ex Rel. Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated School System
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1975-05-23· cited 45×
• State Ex Rel. Jones v. Lockhart
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1953-12-26· cited 44×
• Slayton v. Shumway
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1990-11-06· cited 42×
• Kerby v. Griffin
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1936-12-01· cited 41×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell
  Supreme Court· 1934-01-08· cited 1,617×
• State ex rel. City of Fargo v. Wetz
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 1918-06-14· cited 63×
• State ex rel. Corry v. Cooney
  Montana Supreme Court· 1924-04-26· cited 40×
• State ex rel. Adams v. Herried
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1897-07-14· cited 39×
• State ex rel. School District v. Gordon
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1909-11-08· cited 28×
• Jones v. McClaughry
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1915-02-26· cited 25×
• Lobaugh v. Cook
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1905-04-04· cited 22×
• State ex rel. Pike County v. Gordon
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1916-07-03· cited 21×