4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56 (view source)
Revision as of 17:09, September 26, 2023
, September 26, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
* ''Lower Colorado River Authority v. McCraw'', 83 S.W.2d 629, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/083_SW2_629.pdf#page=8 636] (Tex. 1935) ("In the first place, it is settled that a statute is not local or special, within the meaning of this constitutional provision, even though its enforcement is confined to a restricted area, if persons or things throughout the state are affected thereby, or if it operates upon a subject that the people at large are interested in. Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d 246. An examination of this act convinces us that it operates upon a subject that the state at large is interested in. In fact, the business and operation of this district is not restricted to a particular area.") | * ''Lower Colorado River Authority v. McCraw'', 83 S.W.2d 629, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/083_SW2_629.pdf#page=8 636] (Tex. 1935) ("In the first place, it is settled that a statute is not local or special, within the meaning of this constitutional provision, even though its enforcement is confined to a restricted area, if persons or things throughout the state are affected thereby, or if it operates upon a subject that the people at large are interested in. Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d 246. An examination of this act convinces us that it operates upon a subject that the state at large is interested in. In fact, the business and operation of this district is not restricted to a particular area.") | ||
* ''Fritter v. West'', 65 S.W.2d 414, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/065_SW_414.pdf#page= | * ''Fritter v. West'', 65 S.W.2d 414, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/065_SW_414.pdf#page=2 415-16] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1933, ref'd) ("Furthermore, by the expressed terms of this bill it affects only Kinney county. It could never extend to any other county. In City of Fort Worth v. Bobbitt, 36 S.W.(2d) 479, 472, the court said: 'An act which designates a particular city or county by name - * * and whose operation is limited to such city or county, is held to be local or special.' Senate Bill No. 542 is undoubtedly a special law. . . . . S. B. No. 542, being a special law and repugnant to section 3, art. 7, and section 56 of article 3, of our State Constitution, is unconstitutional and void.") | ||
* ''Smith v. State'', 49 S.W.2d 739, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/049_SW2_739.pdf#page=5 743-44] (Tex.Crim.App. 1932) ("Again, the effort of the Legislature, by amending [the relevant statute], after the census of 1930 disclosed that McLennan county had by virtue of increased population passed beyond its operation, to hold McLennan county within the purview of the act, manifests, under the decisions, a purpose, by a pretended classification, to evade the constitutional inhibition, and, under the guise of such classification, to enact a law designed for McLennan county alone. . . . Hence the opinion is expressed that a violation of the provisions of article 3, § 56, of the Constitution is manifested.") | * ''Smith v. State'', 49 S.W.2d 739, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/049_SW2_739.pdf#page=5 743-44] (Tex.Crim.App. 1932) ("Again, the effort of the Legislature, by amending [the relevant statute], after the census of 1930 disclosed that McLennan county had by virtue of increased population passed beyond its operation, to hold McLennan county within the purview of the act, manifests, under the decisions, a purpose, by a pretended classification, to evade the constitutional inhibition, and, under the guise of such classification, to enact a law designed for McLennan county alone. . . . Hence the opinion is expressed that a violation of the provisions of article 3, § 56, of the Constitution is manifested.") | ||