State Ex Rel. Caleb v. Beesley

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting challenge based upon Article I, section 16, prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
• discussing test; indicating that enactment does not violate single-subject requirement “merely by including a wide range of connected matters intended to accomplish the goal of that single subject”
• under Article TV, section l(2)(d), the court must examine the measure at issue to determine whether it embraces a single subject
• case law interpreting both Article IV, section 20, and Article IV, section l(2)(d) is relevant to the analysis
• absent clear indication to the contrary, a statute incorporated within an amendatory act is deemed neither repealed nor reenacted merely by being so incorporated
• measure embraces a single subject if the reviewing court can discern a “unifying principle logically connecting all provisions” in the measure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).