State v. Becker
Citations
- 3 S.D. 29
- 51 N.W. 1018
- 1892 S.D. LEXIS 37
Syllabus
<p>1. Section 12, c. 101, Laws 1890, which provides that under certain conditions, therein named, the attorney general shall appoint some reputable attorney tor the purpose of enforcing said law, and that such appointee shall have authority to sign, verify, and file all such complaints, in-formations, indictments, petitions, and papers as the state’s attorney is authorized to sign, etc., and to do any act that such state’s attorney might lawfully do, is not invalid in that it attempts to confer upon the attorney general the power to create a new office.</p> <p>2. The fact that the prosecutor in this case had been so appointed being properly alleged in the information, defendant in error could not, in an issue made by demurrer to the information, raise the question that his authority should be made to appear by evidence other than the averment of the information. The fact of the appointment was admitted by demurring.</p> <p>3. An information in a criminal proceeding in the county court under said chapter 101 may be made by the attorney general or a state’s attorney on his information and belief.</p> <p>4. It is only when the collision between the legislative and the constitutional law is certain and inevitable that the courts feel justified in declaring a law void on that account.</p> <p>5. The object of section 21, art. 3, of the constitution, providing that “no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title,” is to prevent bringing together into one act measures diverse and foreign to each other, with a view of combining the friends of each, and thus to accomplish the passage in one law of the several measures, which could not have passed on their individual merits, and also to prevent the insertion into bills of matter or measures of which the title gave no notice, and thus to deceive and mislead individual legislators and the public generally.</p> <p>6. The disposition of the courts is general to construe this constitutional provis
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 punishment may be set aside as unconstitutional “in very extreme cases, where the punishment proposed is so severe and out of proportion to the offense as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people”
- noting that a punishment may be set aside as unconstitutional ―in very extreme cases, where the punishment proposed is so severe and out of proportion to the offense as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people‖
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Kellam
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
61 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court· 1991-06-27· cited 4,521×
- State v. HoustonUtah Supreme Court· 2015-03-13· cited 94×
- State v. PhippsSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1982-04-14· cited 88×
- State v. BonnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1998-04-01· cited 87×
- State v. Bad Heart BullSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1977-09-16· cited 82×
- State v. Big HeadSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1985-02-20· cited 70×
- Ex parte CorlissNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1907-10-23· cited 61×
- Jackson v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1900-05-14· cited 52×
- Sustar v. County CourtOregon Supreme Court· 1921-10-25· cited 52×
- State ex rel. Payne v. ReevesSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1921-10-27· cited 50×
- State v. HelmSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1980-01-16· cited 45×
- Bailey v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1934-11-30· cited 44×
- State v. HollowaySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1992-03-11· cited 41×
- Bult v. LeapleySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1993-10-20· cited 40×
- In re WatsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1903-12-09· cited 39×
- DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, — APPELLEE/CROSS v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, — APPELLANTS/CROSSEighth Circuit· 2004-03-23· cited 38×
- Green v. City of CascadeSupreme Court of Iowa· 1975-07-31· cited 38×
- State v. BurrisSupreme Court of Iowa· 1922-10-17· cited 30×
- State ex rel. McClory v. DonovanNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1901-05-31· cited 29×
- State v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court· 1900-01-29· cited 28×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People ex rel. Drake v. MahaneyMichigan Supreme Court· 1865-10-28· cited 427×
- Pervear v. CommonwealthSupreme Court· 1867-04-29· cited 111×
- Tiernan v. RinkerSupreme Court· 1880-11-15· cited 70×
- Washburn v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court· 1862-07-17· cited 69×
- State v. MorganSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1891-03-19· cited 66×
- O'Leary v. County of CookIllinois Supreme Court· 1862-04-15· cited 39×
- People v. MorrisMichigan Supreme Court· 1890-05-09· cited 35×
- Mewherter v. PriceIndiana Supreme Court· 1858-12-03· cited 33×
- People Ex Rel. Angerstein v. KenneyNew York Court of Appeals· 1884-06-17· cited 32×
- State ex rel. Miller v. Board of CommissionersNebraska Supreme Court· 1885-01-15· cited 32×
- Cole v. HallIllinois Supreme Court· 1882-05-12· cited 24×
- Durkee v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court· 1870-06-15· cited 20×
- Rose v. NewmanTexas Supreme Court· 1861-07-01· cited 18×
- State v. AdamsonIndiana Supreme Court· 1860-06-04· cited 18×
- Mahomet v. QuackenbushSupreme Court· 1886-04-05· cited 17×
- Fletcher v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1876-11-15· cited 17×
- Luton v. Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court· 1888-04-25· cited 16×
- Stickrod v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1887-11-10· cited 12×
- Gradwohl v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1865-07-01· cited 11×
- Calender v. OlcottMichigan Supreme Court· 1849-01-15· cited 10×
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.