4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 16: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 16 (view source)
Revision as of 13:24, July 7, 2023
, July 7, 2023no edit summary
m (Text replacement - ")↵↵}}" to ") |seo_title= |seo_keywords= |seo_description= |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights }}") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
* ''Texas Water Rights Comm'n v. Wright'', 464 S.W.2d 642, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8133383173221091332#p648 648] (Tex. 1971) (citation omitted) ("The Texas Constitution, unlike the Federal Constitution, has a specific prohibition against retroactive laws. The provision in the State Constitution broadly protects rights, although they may not be rights in property. A right has been defined to be 'a well-founded claim, and a well-founded claim means nothing more nor less than a claim recognized or secured by law.' Permittees urge that Article 7519a is invalid because it nullifies their vested rights. . . . Mere retroactivity is not sufficient to invalidate a statute.") | * ''Texas Water Rights Comm'n v. Wright'', 464 S.W.2d 642, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8133383173221091332#p648 648] (Tex. 1971) (citation omitted) ("The Texas Constitution, unlike the Federal Constitution, has a specific prohibition against retroactive laws. The provision in the State Constitution broadly protects rights, although they may not be rights in property. A right has been defined to be 'a well-founded claim, and a well-founded claim means nothing more nor less than a claim recognized or secured by law.' Permittees urge that Article 7519a is invalid because it nullifies their vested rights. . . . Mere retroactivity is not sufficient to invalidate a statute.") | ||
* ''Hutchings v. Slemons'', 174 S.W.2d 487, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Hutchings v. Slemons'', 174 S.W.2d 487, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/174_SW2_487.pdf#page=4 490-91] (Tex. 1943) ("It requires no discussion to show that to deny the broker the right to file suit and to offer evidence of his valid parol contract through remedial legislation . . . . It follows from what we have said that in our opinion the legislature did not intend the act in question to operate retroactively and that said act has no application to the oral contract in suit. But, if such a construction is required, the act in question is void in so far as it operates upon contracts made prior to the effective date of the act because violative of Article 1, Section 16 of the Constitution of Texas.") | ||
* ''Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Marshall'', 76 S.W.2d 1007, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/076_S.W.2d_1007.pdf#page=18 1024] (Tex. 1934) ("So, in view of the history of the adoption of the contract clause in the Federal Constitution, its incorporation in the organic laws of the several states, and the long judicial interpretation thereof by . . . , there is no doubt whatever but that section 16 of our Bill of Rights (article 1 of the Constitution) prohibits the enactment of moratory legislation which impairs the obligation of contracts, even though enacted during an industrial depression, such as this country had previously suffered in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1861-1865, and 1873.") | * ''Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Marshall'', 76 S.W.2d 1007, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/076_S.W.2d_1007.pdf#page=18 1024] (Tex. 1934) ("So, in view of the history of the adoption of the contract clause in the Federal Constitution, its incorporation in the organic laws of the several states, and the long judicial interpretation thereof by . . . , there is no doubt whatever but that section 16 of our Bill of Rights (article 1 of the Constitution) prohibits the enactment of moratory legislation which impairs the obligation of contracts, even though enacted during an industrial depression, such as this country had previously suffered in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1861-1865, and 1873.") | ||