5,594
edits
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''Hogan v. S. Methodist Univ.'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4402055373431139742#p--- ___] (Tex. 2024) ("Instead, such prohibitions should not be interpreted 'without regard to the intent' for which they were enacted. ''Id''. The framers of the 1876 Constitution knew that Texas courts would likely take ''DeCordova'''s view of constitutional bans on retroactive laws when they wrote article I, section 16. They could have reacted to ''DeCordova'' by . . . . We should therefore reject the suggestion that the 1876 Constitution's prohibition on retroactive laws was understood at the time of its adoption as a categorical prohibition on ''all'' backward-looking legislation.") | |||
* ''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.") | ||
| Line 38: | Line 40: | ||
|seo_title=Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution ("Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws; Impairing Obligation of Contracts") | |seo_title=Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution ("Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws; Impairing Obligation of Contracts") | ||
|seo_keywords= | |seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 16, retroactive laws, impairing contracts | ||
|seo_description=No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made. | |seo_description=No bill of attainder, ''ex post facto'' law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made. | ||
|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights | |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights | ||