Skip to main content

State v. Mabry

Citations

  • 460 N.W.2d 472
  • 1990 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 206
  • 1990 WL 136044

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding no single-subject challenge to a statute may be brought after the act is codified
  • holding no single-subject challenge to a statute may be brought after the act is codified
  • adopting the rule that “codification of the challenged legislation cures a constitutional defect in title or subject matter”
  • noting the threefold purpose of the single-subject requirement: to prevent logrolling, to adequately inform legislators of pending legislation, and to fairly inform citizens of subjects the legislature is considering
  • noting the threefold purpose of the single-subject requirement: to prevent logrolling, to adequately inform legislators of pending legislation, and to fairly inform citizens of subjects the legislature is considering
  • defendant failed to challenge legislation pri- or to codification and thus any alleged constitutional defect was cured

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Larson, Carter, Lavorato, Neuman, Andreasen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.