5,051
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 16 (view source)
Revision as of 09:11, May 27, 2024
, Monday at 09:11no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|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 using different constitutional text | * ''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 using different constitutional text . . . . 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.") | ||