Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 35: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 35 (view source)

Revision as of 11:23, July 25, 2023

5 bytes removed ,  July 25, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 37: Line 37:
* ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_113_SWR_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.")
* ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_113_SWR_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.")


* ''McMeans v. Finley'', 32 S.W. 524, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_032_SWR_524.pdf#page=2 525] (Tex. 1895) ("[T]he contention is that the act contains more than one subject. It was doubtless intended by Section 35 to prevent certain practices sometimes resorted to in legislative bodies to secure legislation contrary to the will of the majority,—one, that of misleading members by incorporating in the body of the act some subject not named in the title; the other, that of including in the same bill two matters foreign to each other, for the purpose of procuring the support of such legislators as could be induced to vote for one provision merely for the purpose of securing the enactment of the other.")
* ''McMeans v. Finley'', 32 S.W. 524, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_916.pdf#page=2 525] (Tex. 1895) ("[T]he contention is that the act contains more than one subject. It was doubtless intended by Section 35 to prevent certain practices sometimes resorted to in legislative bodies to secure legislation contrary to the will of the majority,—one, that of misleading members by incorporating in the body of the act some subject not named in the title; the other, that of including in the same bill two matters foreign to each other, for the purpose of procuring the support of such legislators as could be induced to vote for one provision merely for the purpose of securing the enactment of the other.")


* ''Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortg. Co.'', 17 S.W. 840, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_017_SWR_840.pdf#page=4 843] (Tex. 1891) ("The title of that act, besides naming the chapters to be amended, expressly gave the subject of the act . . . and the court doubtless considered this a sufficient designation of the chapters to be amended, and deemed the part of the act then under consideration germane to the subject named. There is nothing in the title of the act under consideration from which the subject may be known, and, were we to hold it a compliance with the requirement of the constitution, we would deny to that clause the effect which its letter and spirit show it was intended to have.")
* ''Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortg. Co.'', 17 S.W. 840, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_017_SWR_840.pdf#page=4 843] (Tex. 1891) ("The title of that act, besides naming the chapters to be amended, expressly gave the subject of the act . . . and the court doubtless considered this a sufficient designation of the chapters to be amended, and deemed the part of the act then under consideration germane to the subject named. There is nothing in the title of the act under consideration from which the subject may be known, and, were we to hold it a compliance with the requirement of the constitution, we would deny to that clause the effect which its letter and spirit show it was intended to have.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/5243"

Navigation menu