State ex rel. Case v. Howell
Citations
- 85 Wash. 294
- 147 P. 1159
- 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1275
Syllabus
<p>Statutes — Referendum— Time oe Taking Effect — Emekgency. The legislative enactment (Laws 1915, p. 227) for the regulation of motor propelled vehicles along streets and highways ■ as common carriers of passengers hy requiring the persons so operating them to take out permits and execute surety bonds to pay all damages sustained by persons injured in the conduct of the business of transporting passengers, and by providing for civil actions to recover against the carrier and his bondsman for the negligence of the carrier, is an attempt at regulation, even if not wholly adequate; and if a state of facts can reasonably be presumed to exist 'Which would justify the legislation, courts must presume that the law was passed for that reason as an exercise of police power; and, its necessity being doubtful, the question of emergency will be treated as a legislative question, and the doubt resolved in favor of the declaration of emergency made by the legislative body.</p> <p>Same. The declaration of immediate emergency existing at the date of the enactment of a law, followed by the declaration that it shall take effect thirty days thereafter, is not such a contradiction in terms as to make invalid the emergency provisions; since laws take effect immediately, although their operation may be deferred for a time, and the intent of the law was merely to give those affected a reasonable period of time in which to adjust themselves to the changed condition effected by the law.</p> <p>Same. The word “immediate,” as used in art. 2, § 1, subd. b, of the state constitution excepting from the right of referendum emergency legislation in matters of the “preservation of public peace, health or safety,” does not import the exclusion of any interval of time, but there is a certain latitude to be given the significance of the word, and it may mean “close to” the time of enacting the law, and that it is within the power of the legislature to cause it to take effect at a future date with ref
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- regulation of common carriers on streets
- regulation of common carriers on streets
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holcomb
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State Ex Rel. Humiston v. MeyersWashington Supreme Court· 1963-04-11· cited 81×
- State ex rel. Mullen v. HowellWashington Supreme Court· 1919-05-24· cited 50×
- City of Memphis v. State ex rel. RyalsTennessee Supreme Court· 1915-09-15· cited 50×
- Clarke v. West Virginia Board of RegentsWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1981-04-03· cited 42×
- State ex rel. Case v. HowellWashington Supreme Court· 1915-04-22· cited 42×
- Taylor v. SmithSupreme Court of Virginia· 1924-09-18· cited 29×
- State ex rel. Wegner v. PyleSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1929-06-25· cited 28×
- Schoenfeld v. City of SeattleW.D. Washington· 1920-06-09· cited 26×
- State Ex Rel. Pennock v. CoeWashington Supreme Court· 1953-05-07· cited 25×
- Hazleton v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia· 1917-08-17· cited 21×
- Thielke v. AlbeeOregon Supreme Court· 1915-12-28· cited 16×
- Record Publishing Co. v. MonsonWashington Supreme Court· 1923-02-14· cited 10×
- In re Counts for a Writ of Habeas CorpusNevada Supreme Court· 1915-10-15· cited 7×
- Geiser v. MyersOregon Supreme Court· 1968-04-11· cited 2×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Jacobson v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1905-02-20· cited 1,266×
- Hawker v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1898-04-18· cited 389×
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co.Supreme Court· 1897-04-26· cited 114×
- Ah Lim v. Territory of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court· 1890-02-28· cited 110×
- State ex rel. Brislawn v. MeathWashington Supreme Court· 1915-03-06· cited 90×
- State v. PitneyWashington Supreme Court· 1914-05-16· cited 48×
- Hanson v. HodgesSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1913-10-13· cited 25×
- Forsythe v. City of HammondU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana· 1895-07-03· cited 9×
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.