Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 19: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 19 (view source)

Revision as of 16:36, July 17, 2023

1 byte removed ,  July 17, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 41: Line 41:
* ''Stockwell v. State'', 221 S.W. 932, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/221_SW_932.pdf#page=4 935] (Tex. 1920) ("Viewing the powers given the Commissioner by this statute and his attempted exercise of them here, the inquiry naturally arises as to what are the rights of the defendant if the Commissioner was mistaken in his judgment that citrus canker was . . . . Under the contest made by his pleading, before the property of the defendant could be summarily destroyed, he was entitled to a judicial hearing and decision as to whether it ought to be destroyed. As applied to such a case, nothing less would amount to due process of law, without which the Bill of Rights declares no citizen shall be deprived of his property.")
* ''Stockwell v. State'', 221 S.W. 932, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/221_SW_932.pdf#page=4 935] (Tex. 1920) ("Viewing the powers given the Commissioner by this statute and his attempted exercise of them here, the inquiry naturally arises as to what are the rights of the defendant if the Commissioner was mistaken in his judgment that citrus canker was . . . . Under the contest made by his pleading, before the property of the defendant could be summarily destroyed, he was entitled to a judicial hearing and decision as to whether it ought to be destroyed. As applied to such a case, nothing less would amount to due process of law, without which the Bill of Rights declares no citizen shall be deprived of his property.")


* ''City of New Braunfels v. Waldschmidt'', 207 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/207_SW_303.pdf#page=2 304-305] (Tex. 1918) ("The contention that this ordinance is inconsistent with the liberty guaranteed by the federal and state Constitutions has been too completely repelled by the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 22, 25 Sup.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643, 3 Ann.Cas. 765, to justify further discussion. . . . However, if defendants in error, or any of them, had a right with respect to the children's school attendance, which could properly be considered a property right, the same was held subject to a valid exercise of the police power of the state.")
* ''City of New Braunfels v. Waldschmidt'', 207 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/207_SW_303.pdf#page=2 304-05] (Tex. 1918) ("The contention that this ordinance is inconsistent with the liberty guaranteed by the federal and state Constitutions has been too completely repelled by the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 22, 25 Sup.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643, 3 Ann.Cas. 765, to justify further discussion. . . . However, if defendants in error, or any of them, had a right with respect to the children's school attendance, which could properly be considered a property right, the same was held subject to a valid exercise of the police power of the state.")


* ''Griner v. Thomas'', 104 S.W. 1058, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/104_SW_1058.pdf#page=3 1060] (Tex. 1907) ("To the contention that suspension without notice is a deprivation of property without due process, the answer is that such property right in an office as the holder has is qualified by all pre-existing valid laws which provide for its suspension or termination, and hence the application of remedies so provided for does not unduly deprive him of any property. Trigg v. State, 49 Tex. 669. Whether the suspension of the relator's functions took effect at once upon the making of the order, or, as contended by him, only when he received notice of it, is a question which cannot affect this proceeding to vacate the order.")
* ''Griner v. Thomas'', 104 S.W. 1058, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/104_SW_1058.pdf#page=3 1060] (Tex. 1907) ("To the contention that suspension without notice is a deprivation of property without due process, the answer is that such property right in an office as the holder has is qualified by all pre-existing valid laws which provide for its suspension or termination, and hence the application of remedies so provided for does not unduly deprive him of any property. Trigg v. State, 49 Tex. 669. Whether the suspension of the relator's functions took effect at once upon the making of the order, or, as contended by him, only when he received notice of it, is a question which cannot affect this proceeding to vacate the order.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/4833"

Navigation menu