State ex rel. Dawson v. Sessions
Citations
- 84 Kan. 856
- 115 P. 641
- 1911 Kan. LEXIS 430
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Constitution — Rules for Interpreting. A constitution must be interpreted liberally to carry into effect the principles of government which it embodies. It deals broadly with general subjects, and its language should not be interpreted in any narrow,. refined or subtle sense, but should be held to m.ean what the words imply to the common understanding of men.</p> <p>2. - Veto — Time within which It May Be Exercised. The words “if any bill shall not be returned within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to the governor” contained in section 14 of article 2 of the constitution, relating to thé veto power, would indicate to persons of common understanding that the governor should have three full working days to consider and act upon a bill.</p> <p>3. Time — Computation. The general rule (where the rule of the code does not apply) to include the day on which an act is done in computing time from or after an act or event, is not inflexible. When not expressly declared to be inclusive or exclusive the words “after,” “from,” “subsequent,” and the ■like, are susceptible of different significations, and are used in different senses, having an inclusive or exclusive meaning according to the subject matter, context, and the purpose to be accomplished.</p> <p>4. Governor — Time for Action on Bills — Three Bays Excluding-Bay of Presentation. Considering the policy of the constitution with respect to the enactment of laws and the probable understanding of the language in question by the people in adopting it, it is held that the three days limited for the action of the governor upon bills should be computed by excluding the day on which they are presented to him.</p> <p>5. Laws — When Complete. A law is not complete until it has been finally acted upon by the two houses of the legislature and by the governor, although the action of the latter may be only negative, as when he permits a bill to become a law by failing
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- McKenzie, Secretary of State, v. Moore, 92 Ky. 216 [17 S. W. 483, 14 L. R. A. 251]
- constitution must be interpreted to carry out the principles of the government, and not be given technical construction which will defeat them
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Benson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Harris v. ShanahanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1963-12-05· cited 92×
- Bank of Kansas v. DavisonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1993-10-29· cited 52×
- Hunt v. EddySupreme Court of Kansas· 1939-05-22· cited 51×
- Higgins v. Cardinal Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1961-03-17· cited 49×
- State Ex Rel. Stephan v. FinneySupreme Court of Kansas· 1994-01-27· cited 39×
- State Ex Rel. Schneider v. KennedySupreme Court of Kansas· 1978-12-05· cited 37×
- Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas· 1990-12-07· cited 34×
- Redmond v. RaySupreme Court of Iowa· 1978-07-26· cited 32×
- Winters v. MyersSupreme Court of Kansas· 1914-05-09· cited 30×
- State Ex Rel. Frizzell v. Highwood Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1970-07-17· cited 25×
- Clark v. BoyceArizona Supreme Court· 1919-11-04· cited 24×
- Croissant v. DeSoto Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1924-06-02· cited 20×
- State v. RiffeSupreme Court of Kansas· 2018-06-08· cited 17×
- Solberg v. State TreasurerNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1952-04-24· cited 14×
- State ex rel. Smith v. RyanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1927-06-11· cited 9×
- State ex rel. Stephan v. AdamSupreme Court of Kansas· 1988-08-24· cited 9×
- Lewis, Secretary of State v. CozineCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1930-06-13· cited 8×
- State ex rel. Boynton v. FrenchSupreme Court of Kansas· 1931-07-03· cited 5×
- Griffin v. SheldonD. Alaska· 1948-06-28· cited 5×
- Goddard v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1943-08-03· cited 4×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State ex rel. State Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. MichelSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1900-03-15· cited 37×
- Wolfe v. McCaullSupreme Court of Virginia· 1882-07-15· cited 24×
- Stinson v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1863-07-15· cited 13×
- Beaudean v. City of Cape GirardeauSupreme Court of Missouri· 1880-04-15· cited 13×
- City of Kansas City v. GibsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1903-04-11· cited 8×
- Hyde v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court· 1859-07-01· cited 3×
Other cases named State ex rel. Dawson v. Sessions
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.