State ex rel. Brislawn v. Meath
Washington Supreme Court
147 P. 11 (1915)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
A legislative act in Washington state (defendant) amended the board of state land commissioners and gave them power to administer the public lands of the state. Washington’s constitution included a provision called the initiative-and-referendum law that mandated that no law other than appropriations bills would take effect until 90 days after the end of the relevant legislative session, unless the law was an emergency as expressed in the act. This also effectively removed emergencies from the scope of the state’s allowance of referendums. The act in question was accordingly labeled an emergency, and although that distinction was vetoed by the governor, the entire act passed over his veto. Edward Meath (plaintiff), on behalf of a group of state tax commissioners and fire wardens, filed an action in quo warranto against the state because the act excluded the group from the board. Meath sought a finding that the legislature could not manufacture a false emergency to circumvent the waiting period prescribed in the state constitution. The state attorney general argued that a court could not review the discretion of the legislative body in determining an emergency. Meath argued that the so-called emergency did not exist and that the court did have authority to consider whether the act fit within the narrow exception to the waiting period indicated in the state constitution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chadwick, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.