4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article X, Section 2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article X, Section 2 (view source)
Revision as of 11:41, September 14, 2023
, September 14, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
* ''City of Denison v. Municipal Gas Co.'', 3 S.W.2d 794, 797 (Tex. 1928) ("In view of the wording of section 2, art. 10, the amendment definitely provided a constitutional grant and authority for these powers to be exercised by a body or agency other than the Legislature itself, and solved the vexing question . . ., that the Legislature was required to do and perform these duties by its own actions. The fact that it makes certain that means and agencies of government with powers to fix and regulate rail rates and prevent abuses, etc., may be created by law, does not create a body over which the jurisdiction of the lawmaking body is limited to the making of rates and matters pertaining to railroads.") | * ''City of Denison v. Municipal Gas Co.'', 3 S.W.2d 794, 797 (Tex. 1928) ("In view of the wording of section 2, art. 10, the amendment definitely provided a constitutional grant and authority for these powers to be exercised by a body or agency other than the Legislature itself, and solved the vexing question . . ., that the Legislature was required to do and perform these duties by its own actions. The fact that it makes certain that means and agencies of government with powers to fix and regulate rail rates and prevent abuses, etc., may be created by law, does not create a body over which the jurisdiction of the lawmaking body is limited to the making of rates and matters pertaining to railroads.") | ||
* ''Burgess v. American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co.'', 295 S.W. 649, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/295_SW2_649.pdf#page=3 651] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1927, ref'd) ("The proponents of railroad regulation, in order to make that principle irrevocable, caused the submission of section 2, article 10, of the Constitution, and adopted it in 1890. The execution of that provision was one of the main subjects of contention in the memorable campaign of 1892, when Governor Hogg triumphed over his enemies and the opponents of the restraint and regulation of corporations. There is no room for doubt that a Railroad Commission could have been created | * ''Burgess v. American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co.'', 295 S.W. 649, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/295_SW2_649.pdf#page=3 651] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1927, ref'd) ("The proponents of railroad regulation, in order to make that principle irrevocable, caused the submission of section 2, article 10, of the Constitution, and adopted it in 1890. The execution of that provision was one of the main subjects of contention in the memorable campaign of 1892, when Governor Hogg triumphed over his enemies and the opponents of the restraint and regulation of corporations. There is no room for doubt that a Railroad Commission could have been created . . . . Those powers have been sustained by courts, state and federal, all over the Union, and are now seldom questioned") | ||
* ''Herring v. Hous. Nat’l Exch. Bank'', 253 S.W. 813, 816 (Tex. 1923) ("Our Texas Railroad Commission was a pioneer in this field of governmental activity. It exercises governmental functions pertaining, perhaps, to each or all of the three divisions of government. In its rate-making powers it invaded the legislative prerogatives; its powers of adjusting rates were at least quasi judicial; and in the administration of its great powers it exercised executive functions. Its political status being novel, and its powers and their exercise yet to be determined by the courts . . . . It is a matter of common knowledge that the state, through its Legislature, has zealously guarded the Railroad Commission.") | * ''Herring v. Hous. Nat’l Exch. Bank'', 253 S.W. 813, 816 (Tex. 1923) ("Our Texas Railroad Commission was a pioneer in this field of governmental activity. It exercises governmental functions pertaining, perhaps, to each or all of the three divisions of government. In its rate-making powers it invaded the legislative prerogatives; its powers of adjusting rates were at least quasi judicial; and in the administration of its great powers it exercised executive functions. Its political status being novel, and its powers and their exercise yet to be determined by the courts . . . . It is a matter of common knowledge that the state, through its Legislature, has zealously guarded the Railroad Commission.") | ||