Schwab v. Ariyoshi

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a violation of a constitutional provision regarding the enactment of legislation “would render an enactment nugatory.”
• observing that the purpose of the single subject requirement is, inter alia, “to prevent surprise or fraud upon the Legislature[,]” and to provide notice to the public of proposed legislation
• addressing whether a bill satisfied the constitutional three readings and subject-in-title requirements
• “The power of the legislature should not be interfered with unless it is exercised in a manner which plainly conflicts with some higher law.”
• “As a general rule, the role of the court in supervising the activity of the legislature is confined to seeing that the actions of the legislature do not violate any constitutional provision.”
• courts will not interfere with the conduct of legislative affairs in absence of a constitutional mandate to do so, or unless the procedure or result constitutes a deprivation of constitutionally guaranteed rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).