Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 18 - Revision history

Admin: Undo revision 9081 by Admin (talk)

2025-10-28T15:18:07Z

Undo revision 9081 by Admin (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, October 28, 2025
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.")

Admin at 15:17, October 28, 2025

2025-10-28T15:17:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:17, October 28, 2025
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.")

Admin: Undo revision 9079 by Admin (talk)

2025-10-28T14:57:47Z

Undo revision 9079 by Admin (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:57, October 28, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.		'''No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.'''

	\|editor=		\|editor=

Admin at 14:57, October 28, 2025

2025-10-28T14:57:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:57, October 28, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	~~'''~~No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.~~'''~~		No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.

	\|editor=		\|editor=

Admin at 20:27, May 27, 2024

2024-05-27T20:27:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, May 27, 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.		'''No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.'''

	\|editor=		\|editor=
Line 33:		Line 33:
	\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")		\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")
	\|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 18, imprisonment for debt, child support obligation		\|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 18, imprisonment for debt, child support obligation
	\|seo_description=This section declares~~: "No~~ person shall ever be imprisoned for debt."		\|seo_description=This section declares that '[n]o person shall ever be imprisoned for debt."
	\|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights		\|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights

Admin at 19:50, May 27, 2024

2024-05-27T19:50:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, May 27, 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Imprisonment for Debt"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	~~'''~~No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.~~'''~~		No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.

	\|editor=		\|editor=

Admin at 16:14, July 21, 2023

2023-07-21T16:14:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, July 21, 2023
Line 33:		Line 33:
	\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")		\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")
	\|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 18, imprisonment for debt, child support obligation		\|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 18, imprisonment for debt, child support obligation
	\|seo_description=No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.		\|seo_description=This section declares: "No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt."
	\|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights		\|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights

Admin at 00:35, July 11, 2023

2023-07-11T00:35:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, July 10, 2023
Line 29:		Line 29:
	* ''Ex parte Davis'', 111 S.W. 394, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/111_SW_394.pdf#page=2 395-96] (Tex. 1908) ("The claim of Mrs. Davis for support of . . . . She could not have maintained an action against her husband to enforce that duty, except in the manner in which it was done in the proceedings for divorce. The Constitution of this state does not prohibit the imprisonment of a man except for the collection of a debt, and the proceeding in this case, being for the enforcement of a duty, natural and legal, due from Davis to his wife and children, all of whom were subject to the jurisdiction of the court, does not come within the prohibition of the Constitution.")		* ''Ex parte Davis'', 111 S.W. 394, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/111_SW_394.pdf#page=2 395-96] (Tex. 1908) ("The claim of Mrs. Davis for support of . . . . She could not have maintained an action against her husband to enforce that duty, except in the manner in which it was done in the proceedings for divorce. The Constitution of this state does not prohibit the imprisonment of a man except for the collection of a debt, and the proceeding in this case, being for the enforcement of a duty, natural and legal, due from Davis to his wife and children, all of whom were subject to the jurisdiction of the court, does not come within the prohibition of the Constitution.")

	* ''Dixon v. State'', 2 Tex. 482, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/~~2_Tex._482~~.pdf#page=2 483] (1847) ("It is not to be supposed, and it will scarcely be contended, that it ever entered into the minds of the framers of the Constitution, that they were to be understood as having any application to the administration of the criminal laws; or that they were to have the effect to prevent the punishment of crimes. It was well known to them that the abolition of imprisonment for debt in other States, where it had been effected, had been held to consist with the enactment of laws for the punishment by imprisonment of criminal frauds perpetrated to avoid the payment of debts.")		* ''Dixon v. State'', 2 Tex. 482, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/002_Tex_482.pdf#page=2 483] (1847) ("It is not to be supposed, and it will scarcely be contended, that it ever entered into the minds of the framers of the Constitution, that they were to be understood as having any application to the administration of the criminal laws; or that they were to have the effect to prevent the punishment of crimes. It was well known to them that the abolition of imprisonment for debt in other States, where it had been effected, had been held to consist with the enactment of laws for the punishment by imprisonment of criminal frauds perpetrated to avoid the payment of debts.")

	\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")		\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")

Admin at 00:33, July 11, 2023

2023-07-11T00:33:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, July 10, 2023
Line 27:		Line 27:
	* ''Ex parte Preston'', 347 S.W.2d 938, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11657751489807214244#p941 941] (Tex. 1961) ("The courts of this state have long since put to rest the contention that a husband and father may not be imprisoned for failure to pay alimony or child support and yet these matters seem much more closely related to the ordinary definition of debt than is an order of community division. In the matter of alimony or child support the court orders the person to pay over money belonging to him. In ''Ex parte Davis'', 101 Tex. 607 . . . . In our case the order is directed to Preston that he pay over money in his possession that rightfully belongs not to him but to his wife.")		* ''Ex parte Preston'', 347 S.W.2d 938, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11657751489807214244#p941 941] (Tex. 1961) ("The courts of this state have long since put to rest the contention that a husband and father may not be imprisoned for failure to pay alimony or child support and yet these matters seem much more closely related to the ordinary definition of debt than is an order of community division. In the matter of alimony or child support the court orders the person to pay over money belonging to him. In ''Ex parte Davis'', 101 Tex. 607 . . . . In our case the order is directed to Preston that he pay over money in his possession that rightfully belongs not to him but to his wife.")

	* ''Ex parte Davis'', 111 S.W. 394, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/~~Vol_111_SWR_394~~.pdf#page=2 395-96] (Tex. 1908) ("The claim of Mrs. Davis for support of . . . . She could not have maintained an action against her husband to enforce that duty, except in the manner in which it was done in the proceedings for divorce. The Constitution of this state does not prohibit the imprisonment of a man except for the collection of a debt, and the proceeding in this case, being for the enforcement of a duty, natural and legal, due from Davis to his wife and children, all of whom were subject to the jurisdiction of the court, does not come within the prohibition of the Constitution.")		* ''Ex parte Davis'', 111 S.W. 394, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/111_SW_394.pdf#page=2 395-96] (Tex. 1908) ("The claim of Mrs. Davis for support of . . . . She could not have maintained an action against her husband to enforce that duty, except in the manner in which it was done in the proceedings for divorce. The Constitution of this state does not prohibit the imprisonment of a man except for the collection of a debt, and the proceeding in this case, being for the enforcement of a duty, natural and legal, due from Davis to his wife and children, all of whom were subject to the jurisdiction of the court, does not come within the prohibition of the Constitution.")

	* ''Dixon v. State'', 2 Tex. 482, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/2_Tex._482.pdf#page=2 483] (1847) ("It is not to be supposed, and it will scarcely be contended, that it ever entered into the minds of the framers of the Constitution, that they were to be understood as having any application to the administration of the criminal laws; or that they were to have the effect to prevent the punishment of crimes. It was well known to them that the abolition of imprisonment for debt in other States, where it had been effected, had been held to consist with the enactment of laws for the punishment by imprisonment of criminal frauds perpetrated to avoid the payment of debts.")		* ''Dixon v. State'', 2 Tex. 482, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/2_Tex._482.pdf#page=2 483] (1847) ("It is not to be supposed, and it will scarcely be contended, that it ever entered into the minds of the framers of the Constitution, that they were to be understood as having any application to the administration of the criminal laws; or that they were to have the effect to prevent the punishment of crimes. It was well known to them that the abolition of imprisonment for debt in other States, where it had been effected, had been held to consist with the enactment of laws for the punishment by imprisonment of criminal frauds perpetrated to avoid the payment of debts.")

Admin at 00:31, July 11, 2023

2023-07-11T00:31:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, July 10, 2023
Line 32:		Line 32:

	\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")		\|seo_title=Article I, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Imprisonment for Debt")
	\|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 18, imprisonment for debt, child support ~~obligations~~		\|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 18, imprisonment for debt, child support obligation
	\|seo_description=No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.		\|seo_description=No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.
	\|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights		\|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights