Palmer v. State
Citations
- 11 S.D. 78
- 75 N.W. 818
- 1898 S.D. LEXIS 75
Syllabus
<p>Const. Art. 3 Sec. 12 forbids the appointment of any member of the legislature, during the the term for which he was elected, to any civil office in the state created, or the emoluments of which have been increased, during the term for which he was elected, and forbids that any member doing the term for which he was elected, or one year thereafter, be interested in any contract with the state, or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he was elected. Laws 1897, Chapter 110, Section 41, after prescribing certain duties of the attorney general and state’s attorneys, authorizes the railroad commissioners to employ additional legal counsel, and the general appropriation bill for the same year, in the section relating- to railroad commissioners (Laws 1897, Chapter 10, Section 20). contains the item; “For litigation fund for biennial period of 1897 and 1898 $4,500.” Held, that an attorney who was chosen a member of the legislature for the biennial period beginning January 1, 1897, cannot collect for services rendered the railroad commissioners during 1897.</p>
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 member of the legislature that authorized an appropriation for the railroad commissioners could not be paid for his employment with the railroad commissioners
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Haney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Vreeland v. ByrneSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1977-02-11· cited 118×
- Frazier v. State by and Through PittmanMississippi Supreme Court· 1987-03-04· cited 67×
- Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-07-11· cited 46×
- Warwick v. State Ex Rel. ChanceAlaska Supreme Court· 1976-03-25· cited 34×
- Pitts v. LarsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2001-12-26· cited 7×
- In the Matter of the Interpretation of South Dakota Constitution and State Law Re: State Legislator's Interest in State or County ContractsSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2024-02-09· cited 6×
- Asphalt Surfacing Co. v. South Dakota Department of TransportationSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1986-04-09· cited 5×
- In the Matter of the Interpretation of S.D. Const. and State Law Re: Eligibility for Crf Grant ProgramsSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2020-10-22· cited 2×
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.