Article VIII, Section 2 (discussion page)
Texas Legal Guide (texaslegalguide.com) is currently under construction.
This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page Article VIII, Section 2.
add ?[edit topic]
City of San Antonio v. Young Men's Christian Ass’n, 285 S.W. 844 (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1926, ref'd)
Hoefling & Son v. City of San Antonio, 85 Tex. 228, 234, 20 S.W. 85, 88 (1892)
n Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. State, 64 Tex. 274 (1885), to support his plea to void the tax as to him. Pullman is distinguishable because the statute evaluated in that case was discriminatory on its face: it specifically exempted one group of potential taxpayers. The Pullman court reasoned that because it did not have the power to assess the excluded group, it would exercise the only power it had, which was to prevent collection of an unconstitutionally inequitable tax.
State v. Federal Land Bank of Houston, 160 Tex. 282, 329 S.W.2d 847, 850 (1959). Federal Land Bank is not squarely on point because it involved unequal assessments under the Article 8, section 1 prohibition against unequal property taxes. But we hold that the rationale also applies to unequal collection practices under the Article 8, section 2 prohibition against unequal occupation taxes.
To obtain personal relief, the taxpayer must show not only that the plan was arbitrary and illegal but also that it caused him substantial injury. See id. To prove that he has been substantially injured, the taxpayer must prove that his taxes are excessive or substantially higher by virtue of the omission of the tax on the other group. Id.; see also City of Arlington v. Cannon, 153 Tex. 566, 271 S.W.2d 414, 417 (1954) (must show s
add[edit topic]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6708867576414306083