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 11:24, July 25, 2023

5 bytes removed ,  July 25, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 35: Line 35:
* ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW2_966.pdf#page=5 970] (Tex. 1945) ("The purpose of Section 35 of Article III [] is to require that the bill shall advise both the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, such purpose being stated in [cited case] as follows: 'To advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be ingrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.'")
* ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW2_966.pdf#page=5 970] (Tex. 1945) ("The purpose of Section 35 of Article III [] is to require that the bill shall advise both the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, such purpose being stated in [cited case] as follows: 'To advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be ingrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.'")


* ''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/113_SW_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/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.")
* ''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.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/5244"

Navigation menu