Editing Texas Constitution talk:Article III, Section 56

{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.

==add ?==

Thomas, Interpretative Commentary, I TEX. CONST. art. III, § 56 (1955)

Volume 25 American Jurisprudence (first ed.) Special Legislation 317

Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. 322, 328 (purpose of restriction)

Ayars' App., 122 Pa. 266, 277 !!!!!

==review==

https://cite.case.law/pdf/1436032/Henderson%20v.%20Koenig,%20168%20Mo.%20356%20(1902).pdf 21 376 ("But the assertion is made that cases have been decided
by this court where local or special legislation, that is to
say, legislation applicable alone to the city of St. Louis, or
alone to Kansas City, has been held valid. This is true, but
in the decisions in none of those cases was there any expression or ruling which impinges in the slightest degree on the
constitutional prohibition against a local or special law being
enacted where a general law could have been made applicable;
on the contrary, either distinct or else implied recognition is
constantly given to the idea that, owing to the circumstances
and exigencies of the particular case, a general law could not
have been made applicable, or where it could not have been
made applicable by reason of the fact that the legislation questioned was the result of direct obedience to some specific command of the Constitution.")

Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d 246

Reed v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 177, 59 S.W. 255

San Antonio v. State 270 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App. 1954, ref.)

Atwood v. Willacy County Navigation District, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W.2d 275 (n.r.e.)

King v. Sheppard, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 682 (ref.w.m.)

Langdeau v. Bouknight, 162 Tex. 42, 344 S.W.2d 435 (1961)

J. Keith, CITY AND COUNTY HOME RULE IN TEXAS 45 (1951)

Rios v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 609, 288 S.W.2d 77 (1955)

San Antonio v. State ex rel. Criner, 270 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1954, ref'd)

Ex parte Carsen, 143 Tex. Crim. 498, 159 S.W.2d 126 (1942)

! Anderson v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201, 207 152 S.W.2d 1084 (1941) ("If this were the only limitation on the application of the Act, its validity could be sustained as a general law on the ground that the classification is broad enough to include a substantial class, and the necessity for classification on the basis employed seems to bear some real and fair relation to the subject of the legislation.")

x Womack v. Carson, 123 Tex. 260, 65 S.W.2d 485 (1933)

x Urban v. Harris County, 251 S.W. 594 (TCA-Galveston 1923, ref'd)

== true ==

all counties where the same circumstances exist must have the same form of government

so that a law for one class can reasonably be
expected to work equally well for every member of the
class ; while, if it works ill, it is almost certain to do so in
every case, and that for some cause which lies deeper than
the mere fact that the law is general. The number of
places necessarily affected by a law prevents, moreover, the
enactment of laws designed in the interest of one place
only. If such a law be against the interest of the other
communities affected by it, they will oppose its passage, and
thus the unfair grant of special privileges will be prevented

almost every local law affects people residing outside the locality, the
distinction between general and local laws would seem,
under the doctrine of these cases, to be very indefinite.