6,137
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 18: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 18 (view source)
Revision as of 10:17, October 28, 2025
, Yesterday at 10:17no edit summary
Tag: Undo |
mNo edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
* ''Ex parte Gorena'', 595 S.W.2d 841, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3434480519117623535#p846 846] (Tex. 1979) ("The decree in this case directs Mr. Gorena to make [payments of a portion of his retirement benefits] directly to his former wife. Mr. Gorena cites ''Ex parte Yates'', 387 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1965). ''Yates'' involved . . . . We consider the controlling factor in the ''Yates'' decision to be the fact that Mr. Yates was required to pay money that he had not yet earned. Although the court in ''Yates'' mentioned the fact that the husband was not directed to pay the money to the clerk of the court, the court's opinion in no way indicates that that fact was controlling of its decision.") | * ''Ex parte Gorena'', 595 S.W.2d 841, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3434480519117623535#p846 846] (Tex. 1979) ("The decree in this case directs Mr. Gorena to make [payments of a portion of his retirement benefits] directly to his former wife. Mr. Gorena cites ''Ex parte Yates'', 387 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1965). ''Yates'' involved . . . . We consider the controlling factor in the ''Yates'' decision to be the fact that Mr. Yates was required to pay money that he had not yet earned. Although the court in ''Yates'' mentioned the fact that the husband was not directed to pay the money to the clerk of the court, the court's opinion in no way indicates that that fact was controlling of its decision.") | ||
* ''Thompson v. State'', 557 S.W.2d 521, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13144569076756903490#p525 525-26] (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) ("Appellant claims violation of Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 18, which provides . . . . We also observe the following notes in the Interpretive Commentary, 1 Vernon's Ann. Tex. Const., at p. 445: 'In general, the liability to pay money growing out of contract constitutes a debt within the meaning of the constitutional guaranty. . . . Hence the phrase imprisonment for debt has no application to criminal proceedings, nor to imprisonment meted out as a punishment for violation of the laws and for a refusal to submit to the penalty imposed.") | * ''Thompson v. State'', 557 S.W.2d 521, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13144569076756903490#p525 525-26] (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) ("Appellant claims violation of Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 18, which provides, '. . . .' We also observe the following notes in the Interpretive Commentary, 1 Vernon's Ann. Tex. Const., at p. 445: 'In general, the liability to pay money growing out of contract constitutes a debt within the meaning of the constitutional guaranty. . . . Hence the phrase imprisonment for debt has no application to criminal proceedings, nor to imprisonment meted out as a punishment for violation of the laws and for a refusal to submit to the penalty imposed.") | ||
* ''Rhodes v. State'', 441 S.W.2d 197, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11470278735269001781#p198 198] (Tex.Crim.App. 1969) ("From the statute, it is evident that the legislature intended to create and make it an offense for any person to depart from the premises of a hotel with the intent not to pay for the lodging and meals which he had obtained from said hotel. . . . The statute does not violate Art. I, Section 18, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann. St. for the reason that it is not the non-payment of the services which is punishable, but it is the act of departure with the intent not to pay for such services which is denounced by the statute as an offense.") | * ''Rhodes v. State'', 441 S.W.2d 197, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11470278735269001781#p198 198] (Tex.Crim.App. 1969) ("From the statute, it is evident that the legislature intended to create and make it an offense for any person to depart from the premises of a hotel with the intent not to pay for the lodging and meals which he had obtained from said hotel. . . . The statute does not violate Art. I, Section 18, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann. St. for the reason that it is not the non-payment of the services which is punishable, but it is the act of departure with the intent not to pay for such services which is denounced by the statute as an offense.") | ||