State Ex Rel. Kane v. Goldschmidt

How courts have described this case

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

• continuing appropriation statutes require no further action by the legislature to place the funds at an agency’s disposal
• taxpayer had standing to bring a mandamus action challenging a law that authorized the state to enter into certain financing agreements
• although state-approved financing agreements did not contravene constitutional debt limitations on their face, future, unpredictable circumstances could render agreements in violation of those limitations
• “If we attempted to anticipate and resolve all the variations possible under the statute at this time, we would stray into giving an advisory opinion.”
• each suggesting that, if not “debt,” such funds must be considered an “expense”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).