holding that a statute that limited recovery for certain automobile accident victims was an arbitrary and unreasonable classification in violation of the special -9- legislation clause
How later courts described this case
- holding that a statute that limited recovery for certain automobile accident victims was an arbitrary and unreasonable classification in violation of the special -9- legislation clause
- explaining that although the equal protection clause and the special legislation clause "cover much of the same terrain, they are not duplicates”
- striking classifications that conditioned recovery for personal injuries upon fortuity of whether negligent driver was using vehicle for commercial or private purposes
- assuming, for purposes of special legislation challenge, that problems described by proponents of the legislation do exist
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS, dissenting in part and concurring in part:
I join in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Underwood, except that part thereof which expresses the view that section 609 of the Act is constitutional. On that issue, I concur with the opinion of the majority.