5,594
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 16: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''Hogan v. S. Methodist Univ.'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4402055373431139742#p--- ___] (Tex. 2024) (" ...") | * ''Hogan v. S. Methodist Univ.'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4402055373431139742#p--- ___] (Tex. 2024) ("If the PLPA governs Hogan's claims for monetary relief, there is no question those claims must be dismissed. Hogan does not dispute this. Instead, he contends that applying the PLPA to his claims would violate the Texas Constitution's prohibition on "retroactive law[s]." See TEX. CONST. art. I, § 16. To decide whether he is right, we first consider the text and history of our constitution's retroactivity bar, and we then consider the history of this Court's cases interpreting it. ...") | ||
* ''Fire Prot. Serv., Inc. v. Survitec Survival Prods., Inc.'', 649 S.W.3d 197, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2488607990023532344#p203 203] (Tex. 2022) ("Neither party disputes that their agreement was at-will such that, before the Act's effective date, either party could terminate the agreement at any time for any reason (or no reason) without penalty. Once the Act became effective, however, Survitec could no longer terminate the agreement without good cause. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 57.153. Survitec thus argues that the Act is unconstitutionally retroactive because it 'eliminated Survitec's right to have an at-will relationship with FPS.' We disagree.") | * ''Fire Prot. Serv., Inc. v. Survitec Survival Prods., Inc.'', 649 S.W.3d 197, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2488607990023532344#p203 203] (Tex. 2022) ("Neither party disputes that their agreement was at-will such that, before the Act's effective date, either party could terminate the agreement at any time for any reason (or no reason) without penalty. Once the Act became effective, however, Survitec could no longer terminate the agreement without good cause. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 57.153. Survitec thus argues that the Act is unconstitutionally retroactive because it 'eliminated Survitec's right to have an at-will relationship with FPS.' We disagree.") | ||