Fahey v. Hackmann

Decided January 7, 1922

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1922-01-07

—Ron. J. G. Slate, Judge. (1) The amendment submitted and voted on at the general election in November, 1920, was constitutionally submitted and ratified. The initiative petitions were sufficient in form and number of qualified signers in eleven congressional districts, and a copy of the proposed amendment was published as required bv Article XV of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Winnett, 10 L. R. A. fNT.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1922-01-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably Asplund v. Hannett (1926), Doody v. State Ex Rel. Mobile County (1936)

31 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HIGBEE, J.

¶1 (dissenting).—I concur in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the majority opinion hut am unable to concur in paragraph 6 thereof.

¶2 The amendment contains this clause: “The Legislature shall enact such laws as may be necessary to carry into effect this amendment.” Evidently this contemplates final action on the part of the Legislature. There is no suggestion that the act passed pursuant to this specially delegated power is not in harmony with the amendment or in compliance with its requirements. It was evidently not contemplated that such legislation, so .specially enjoined, should be subject to the referendum. It was taken out of the class of general legislation. In my opinion the act became effective upon its passage and approval and the judgement should be reversed.