Bradley v. Union Bridge & Construction Co.
Decision Date | 06 February 1911 |
Docket Number | 3,689. |
Citation | 185 F. 544 |
Parties | BRADLEY v. UNION BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
O'Day & Haddock, for plaintiff.
Rauch & Senn, for defendant.
This is a personal injury action brought under the employer's liability act adopted by the people of Oregon on November 8 1910, by virtue of the initiative power vested in them by the state Constitution. The accident complained of occurred on November 9, 1910, the next day after the election, and the question for decision is whether the law became operative on the date of its adoption, or not until the vote had been officially canvassed and the proclamation of the Governor issued stating the result and declaring the law to be in force and effect, as provided in section 9 of the legislative act 'to provide for carrying into effect the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people,' etc., filed in the office of the Secretary of State February 25, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 405).
It is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff: (1) That, by the terms of the initiative and referendum amendment of 1902, an act proposed to and adopted by the people takes effect and becomes the law from the time of its adoption; and (2) if this is not so the amendment is silent on the subject, and consequently such a law becomes the law from the its approval unless otherwise declared therein, and that it is not within the power of the Legislature to postpone its taking effect by general law. The amendment referred to, after declaring that the people reserve to themselves the right to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution, and to enact or reject them at the polls independent of the Legislature (which is defined as the initiative), and also the right and power at their option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the legislative assembly (which is defined as the referendum) and providing the percentage of legal voters which shall be required to propose any measure, the officer with whom and the time in which such petition shall be filed, proceeds:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Diefendorf
... ... SALES ... TAX LAW-STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION OF-MORE THAN ONE SUBJECT ... EMBRACED-SUBJECT MATTER NOT CONTAINED IN ... otherwise. ( Bradley v. Union Bridge etc. Co., 185 ... F. 544, 545; Arkansas Tax Com. v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Kemper v. Carter
... ... Portland, 74 ... P. 720; Sec. 57, art. 4, Constitution; Bradley v. Bridge ... Co., 185 F. 544. Any measure referred to the people is ... v. Moore, 145 S.W. 199.] ... In the ... construction of statutes, and ... [165 S.W. 778] ... by parity of reasoning it ... In the case of ... Bradley v. Union Bridge & Construction Co., 185 F ... 544, it was said: ... ...
-
State ex rel. Elsas v. Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission
...vote. [State ex rel. v. Carter, 257 Mo. l. c. 68 et seq.] In this Carter case we expressly approve of rulings in Bradley v. Union Bridge & Construction Co., 185 F. 545, and Arkansas Commission v. Moore, 103 Ark. 48. In Carter's case, supra, Faris, J., quoted from State ex rel. v. Moore, 145......
-
State, Relation of Morris v. Sherman
...Elsas v. Missouri Workmen's Comp. Commission, 318 Mo. 1004, 2 S.W.2d 796, as supporting their contentions, at least in principle. In the Bradley case the court had before it employer's liability act adopted by the people of Oregon on November 8, 1910, through the initiative process. The pla......