Randolph V. Jeffgroscost Randolph V. Jeffgroscost

Randolph V. Jeffgroscost

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

¶1 In November 1998, the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers (the Commission) recommended, and Arizona's electorate approved, Proposition 302, which raised legislative salaries to $24,000 per year and purported to change the method for setting legislators' per diem reimbursements. This case presents two related issues: (1) did the Commission exceed its authority when it recommended changes in the legislative per diem payments; and (2) if so, can we sever the per diem provision from the salary provision, or must we declare Proposition 302 invalid as a whole? We hold that the Commission does not possess authority to recommend changes in legislative per diem payments, and that the per diem provision is, therefore, invalid. We further hold that the invalid per diem provision can be severed from the remainder of the proposition, leaving the salary increase intact.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1999
17 December
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
11
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
63.8
KB

More Books by Arizona Supreme Court

Swanson v. Image Bank Swanson v. Image Bank
2003
Allstate Insurance Co. v. O''toole Allstate Insurance Co. v. O''toole
1995
Aesthetic Property Maintenance Inc. v. Capital Indemnity Corp. Aesthetic Property Maintenance Inc. v. Capital Indemnity Corp.
1995
Sohl v. Winkler Sohl v. Winkler
1994
Matter of Evans Matter of Evans
1995
Wagenseller V. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital Wagenseller V. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital
1985