Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 52: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 52 (view source)

Revision as of 20:31, July 27, 2023

3 bytes removed ,  July 27, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:
* ''Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno'', 917 S.W.2d 717, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15438414451315400853#p739 739-40] (Tex. 1995) (footnote omitted) ("Section 52(a) of article III serves a related purpose; it prohibits the Legislature from authorizing a political subdivision to 'lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association, or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stockholder in such corporation, association or company.' Generally speaking, both sections are intended 'to prevent the application of public funds to private purposes; in other words, to prevent the gratuitous grant of such funds to any individual, corporation, or purpose whatsoever.' ''Byrd v. City of Dallas'', [] 6 S.W.2d 738, 740 (1928).")
* ''Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno'', 917 S.W.2d 717, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15438414451315400853#p739 739-40] (Tex. 1995) (footnote omitted) ("Section 52(a) of article III serves a related purpose; it prohibits the Legislature from authorizing a political subdivision to 'lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association, or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stockholder in such corporation, association or company.' Generally speaking, both sections are intended 'to prevent the application of public funds to private purposes; in other words, to prevent the gratuitous grant of such funds to any individual, corporation, or purpose whatsoever.' ''Byrd v. City of Dallas'', [] 6 S.W.2d 738, 740 (1928).")


* ''State ex rel. La Crosse v. Averill'', 110 S.W.2d 1173, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/110_S.W.2d_1173.pdf#page=2 1174] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1937, ref'd) ("Before proceeding to a consideration of the ultimate question presented by this appeal, it seems proper to express the opinion that both constitutional, statutory and charter provisions upon the subject condemn as unlawful the acts of the members of a city commission in binding the city, by ordinance and contract, to pay out public funds to attorneys or others for services rendered in behalf of such commissioners in defending them against prosecutions for offenses charged against them, either in their private or official capacity, in the courts of the land. Const, art. 1, § 3; article 3, §§ 52, 53; . . .")
* ''State ex rel. La Crosse v. Averill'', 110 S.W.2d 1173, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/110_SW2_1173.pdf#page=2 1174] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1937, ref'd) ("Before proceeding to a consideration of the ultimate question presented by this appeal, it seems proper to express the opinion that both constitutional, statutory and charter provisions upon the subject condemn as unlawful the acts of the members of a city commission in binding the city, by ordinance and contract, to pay out public funds to attorneys or others for services rendered in behalf of such commissioners in defending them against prosecutions for offenses charged against them, either in their private or official capacity, in the courts of the land. Const, art. 1, § 3; article 3, §§ 52, 53; . . .")


* ''City of Breckenridge v. Stephens County'', 40 S.W.2d 43, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/040_S.W.2d_43.pdf#page=1 43-44] (Tex. 1931) ("If the right to expend such funds exists, the right to make a contract so to do must also exist. After a careful investigation of the authorities, including the Constitution and laws of this state, we have reached the conclusion that the commissioners' court does have lawful authority to expend county road bond funds for the improvement of city streets where such streets form integral parts of county roads or state highways, when such improvements are made without conflicting with the jurisdiction of the municipality, or with its consent or approval. Section 52, art. 3, Texas Constitution; State v. Jones, 18 Tex. 874; . . .")
* ''City of Breckenridge v. Stephens County'', 40 S.W.2d 43, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/040_S.W.2d_43.pdf#page=1 43-44] (Tex. 1931) ("If the right to expend such funds exists, the right to make a contract so to do must also exist. After a careful investigation of the authorities, including the Constitution and laws of this state, we have reached the conclusion that the commissioners' court does have lawful authority to expend county road bond funds for the improvement of city streets where such streets form integral parts of county roads or state highways, when such improvements are made without conflicting with the jurisdiction of the municipality, or with its consent or approval. Section 52, art. 3, Texas Constitution; State v. Jones, 18 Tex. 874; . . .")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/5541"

Navigation menu