4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17 (view source)
Revision as of 11:15, July 10, 2023
, July 10, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
* ''City of Corpus Christi v. Allen'', 254 S.W.2d 759, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7019846825364912762#p761 761] (Tex. 1953) ("Since the non-conforming uses here sought to be enjoined are not shown to constitute nuisances, and do not appear to be harmful in any way to public health, safety, morals, or welfare, we conclude that to invoke petitioner's [comprehensive zoning] ordinance to compel respondents to cease operating their business or to move them to another district would be an unreasonable exercise of petitioner's police power and would constitute a taking of their property in violation of Art. I, Sec. 17, of the Constitution of Texas.") | * ''City of Corpus Christi v. Allen'', 254 S.W.2d 759, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7019846825364912762#p761 761] (Tex. 1953) ("Since the non-conforming uses here sought to be enjoined are not shown to constitute nuisances, and do not appear to be harmful in any way to public health, safety, morals, or welfare, we conclude that to invoke petitioner's [comprehensive zoning] ordinance to compel respondents to cease operating their business or to move them to another district would be an unreasonable exercise of petitioner's police power and would constitute a taking of their property in violation of Art. I, Sec. 17, of the Constitution of Texas.") | ||
* ''Texas Highway Dep't v. Weber'', 219 S.W.2d 70, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/219_SW2_70. | * ''Texas Highway Dep't v. Weber'', 219 S.W.2d 70, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/219_SW2_70.pdf#page=3 72] (Tex. 1949) ("The constitutional provision of Texas under consideration, and more or less similar provisions are contained in the constitutions of all the states of this nation, without doubt, constitutes a limitation upon the right of eminent domain . . . . Instead, the provision relates only to private property which is taken for public use. Manifestly, it was not intended that where private property has been damaged or destroyed through the tortious conduct of the state's agents in the performance of their official functions the state should be suable.") | ||
* ''Housing Authority of Dallas v. Higginbotham'', 143 S.W.2d 79, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/143_SW2_79.pdf#page=5 83-84] (Tex. 1940) ("The question as to whether slum clearance and low rent housing are public uses and purposes is a new question in this jurisdiction. The question has been presented to the courts of last resort in the following jurisdictions and has been determined without exception to be a public use: . . . . Mere fiat, whether pronounced by the Legislature or by a subordinate agency, does not make that a public use which is not such in fact, and the question (always present) as to the true nature of the use is one of law.'") | * ''Housing Authority of Dallas v. Higginbotham'', 143 S.W.2d 79, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/143_SW2_79.pdf#page=5 83-84] (Tex. 1940) ("The question as to whether slum clearance and low rent housing are public uses and purposes is a new question in this jurisdiction. The question has been presented to the courts of last resort in the following jurisdictions and has been determined without exception to be a public use: . . . . Mere fiat, whether pronounced by the Legislature or by a subordinate agency, does not make that a public use which is not such in fact, and the question (always present) as to the true nature of the use is one of law.'") | ||