State v. Holder
Citations
- 76 Miss. 158
Syllabus
<p>1. Constitutiohai. Law. Veto power. Appropriations. Const. 1890, secs. 69, 73. Laws 1898, p. 41.</p> <p>Section 73, constitution of 1890, providing that the governor may-veto parts of any appropriation bill, relates to distinct appropriations contained in general appropriation bills and separable items of special appropriation bills, and does not authorize the veto of that part of a special appropriation bill in which is expressed, under section 69 of said constitution, the conditions on which the money may be drawn, and such veto is a nullity.</p> <p>3. Same. Void veto. Adjournment of legislature. Effect on bill. Const. 1890, sec. 73.</p> <p>Where the governor's action in approving a part and vetoing a part of a bill is void, and the legislature has adjourned within five days after the bill was sent to him for approval, it remains in his hands, in legal contemplation, and will become a law, under section 73, constitution of 1890, unless returned to the legislature disapproved within three days after the beginning of its next session.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- equating “parts” with appropriations for purposes of Miss. Const. art. IV, § 73 (allowing governor to “veto parts of any appropriation bill”)
- “The most difficult and delicate duty that ever falls to the lot of the court of last resort is ours today.... [W]e are called upon ... to fix the limitations upon the executive authority to veto the declared will of both houses of the legislature.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Terral, Woods
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Fergus v. RusselIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-11-06· cited 235×
- State Ex Rel. Sego v. KirkpatrickNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1974-07-19· cited 138×
- Jubelirer v. RendellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-08-19· cited 98×
- Harbor v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court· 1987-10-13· cited 86×
- Fulmore v. LaneTexas Supreme Court· 1911-11-22· cited 71×
- Colorado General Assembly v. LammSupreme Court of Colorado· 1985-08-26· cited 68×
- Commonwealth v. DodsonSupreme Court of Virginia· 1940-10-14· cited 68×
- Fordice v. BryanMississippi Supreme Court· 1995-01-12· cited 60×
- Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice of Philippine IslandsSupreme Court· 1937-01-04· cited 52×
- Fairfield v. FosterArizona Supreme Court· 1923-04-14· cited 50×
- State Ex Rel. Turner v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa· 1971-04-09· cited 49×
- Mills v. PorterMontana Supreme Court· 1924-01-11· cited 44×
- Rants v. VilsackSupreme Court of Iowa· 2004-06-16· cited 41×
- Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co.Arizona Supreme Court· 1923-08-28· cited 41×
- Welden v. RaySupreme Court of Iowa· 1975-05-12· cited 37×
- State Ex Rel. Cason v. BondSupreme Court of Missouri· 1973-06-06· cited 37×
- Green v. RawlsSupreme Court of Florida· 1960-06-22· cited 35×
- Cenarrusa v. AndrusIdaho Supreme Court· 1978-07-19· cited 33×
- Management Council of the Wyoming Legislature v. GeringerWyoming Supreme Court· 1998-02-11· cited 28×
- State Ex Rel. Wiseman v. Oklahoma Board of CorrectionsSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1980-07-15· cited 22×
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.