In re Mossmain Irrigation District

2 Citing cases

  1. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young

    2 Cal.3d 259 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 103 times
    In City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young, 1970, 2 Cal.3d 259, 85 Cal.Rptr. 1, 466 P.2d 225, that Court invalidated a sweeping disclosure law that required every public officer to file financial statements covering himself and his family.

    Indeed, a persuasive case in support of the legislative finding can be made, as pointed out infra. A statute is not unconstitutional because it does not thoroughly cover the subject ( In re Boyd (1930) 108 Cal.App. 541, 543 [ 291 P. 845]); or is novel and unusual ( People v. LaFetra (1921) 230 N.Y. 429 [ 130 N.E. 601, 607, 16 A.L.R. 152]); does not include matters which might have been included ( ArizonaEastern R. Co. v. Matthews (1919) 20 Ariz. 282 [180 P. 159, 163, 7 A.L.R. 1149]); may be impracticable or unworkable ( In reMossmain Drainage Dist. (1931) 90 Mont. 1 [ 300 P. 280, 285]); may operate in an unduly onerous manner ( State v. CrescentCotton Oil Co. (1918) 116 Miss. 398 [77 So. 185]); may cause hardship ( International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Goodrich (1954) 308 N.Y. 731 [ 124 N.E.2d 339]); may cause inconvenience ( Bonner v. Jackson (1923) 158 Ark. 526 [251 S.W. 1, 3]); or does not create a perfect plan to accomplish its purpose ( Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955) supra, 348 U.S. 483). This case involves no restriction upon political activity, such as the court found in Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 625, 392 P.2d 385], Kinnear v. City etc. of San Francisco (1964) 61 Cal.2d 341 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 631, 392 P.2d 391], Bagley v. Washington Township HospitalDist.

  2. In re Arnold Drainage District

    300 P. 286 (Mont. 1931)

    The assessment was disallowed in that amount and by an order of the court fixed at $1,100. In all essentials the conditions presented in this appeal are similar to those presented in the appeals in cause No. 6,720, In re Mossmain Drainage District, ante, p. 1, 300 P. 280. Counsel for the appellant and respondent have filed in this court a stipulation to the effect that the result in this case should abide the result in cause No. 6,720. In accordance with that stipulation the orders appealed from are affirmed.