Opinion to the Governor

5 Citing cases

  1. IN RE ADVISORY OPINION TO THE HOUSE OF REP

    599 A.2d 1354 (R.I. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    At issue was whether the vote of the people in favor of the proposition contained in P.L. 1964, ch. 70, gave the industrial authority the "express consent of the people" to pledge the faith and credit of the state to finance the acquisition of machinery and equipment. Opinion to the Governor, 100 R.I. 175, 212 A.2d 64 (1965). In advising the Governor that the referendum inadequately informed the electorate, we found that although the proposition did inform the voters that the proposal would permit the industrial authority to increase the aggregate amount of its mortgages by $10 million, the proposal was deficient because it failed to convey that the state's credit would be pledged for this additional $10 million.

  2. Chartier Real Estate Co. v. Chafee

    101 R.I. 544 (R.I. 1967)   Cited 21 times

    "We think the question to be propounded to the people in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the act is sufficiently informative to meet such requirement and is a substantial compliance with the constitutional prohibition of article XXXI, section 1, of amendments." And in Opinion to the Governor, 100 R.I. 175 at 180, 212 A.2d 64 at 67, the justices said: "* * * to meet the constitutional requirement, the submission must clearly disclose to the ordinary voter that an approval will empower the Authority to pledge the credit of the state and the extent to which that credit may be pledged."

  3. Md. Indus. Devel. v. Helfrich

    250 Md. 602 (Md. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    In re Opinion to the Governor, 90 R.I. 135, 155 A.2d 602 (1959) held that a luxury motor hotel did not qualify as an industrial project. Opinion to the Governor, R.I., 212 A.2d 64 (1965) struck down a proposed increase to $40,000,000 in the aggregate amount of mortgages to be outstanding because the proposition submitted to the voters did not inform "them as to the nature and extent of the pertinent legislation and clearly and reasonably [disclose] to them the nature and extent of the power to pledge the state's credit for which the consent is sought." 212 A.2d at 66.

  4. Opinion to Governor

    101 R.I. 329 (R.I. 1966)   Cited 1 times

    As Your Excellency is well aware, this court has in two recent opinions found fault with the constitutional sufficiency of the propositions submitted to the people for the obtaining of their consent as is required by the provisions of art. XXXI, sec. 1, of the amendments to our state constitution. See Opinion to the Governor, 99 R.I. 351, 208 A.2d 105, and Opinion to the Governor, 100 R.I. 175, 212 A.2d 64. In each of these opinions we found that the propositions submitted to the people for their approval failed to inform the people of the nature and extent of the pledge of the state's credit.

  5. McDougall v. Air Products Chemicals

    C.A. No. 02A-02-008 WCC (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2005)

    See Feralloy Indus., 1998 WL 442937, at *3 (citing Smith v. Pa. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bed., 670 A.2d 1146 (Pa. 1995)).See State v. Cephas, 637 A.2d 20, 22-23 (Del. 1994); Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 212 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). The record below reflects that two hearings occurred before the Board and McDougall failed to raise the statute of limitations affirmative defense in both hearings.