TLG

Texas Constitution:Article XI, Section 5: Difference between revisions

Constitution Discussion

Texas Constitution:Article XI, Section 5 (view source)

Revision as of 09:28, June 20, 2025

No change in size ,  June 20
m
Text replacement - "TEX. CONST." to "Tex. Const."
imported>Admin
No edit summary
 
m (Text replacement - "TEX. CONST." to "Tex. Const.")
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
Line 29: Line 29:
* ''City of Laredo v. Laredo Merch. Ass'n'', 550 S.W.3d 586, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4472504869690593922#p589 589-90] (Tex. 2018) (footnotes omitted) ("The Texas Constitution states that city ordinances cannot conflict with state law. The Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act ('the Act') provides that '[a] local government . . . . Both sides of the debate and the many amici curiae who have weighed in assert public-policy arguments raising economic, environmental, and uniformity concerns. But those arguments are not ours to resolve. 'The wisdom or expediency of the law is the Legislature’s prerogative, not ours.' We must take statutes as they are written, and the one before us is written quite clearly. Its limitation on local control encompasses the ordinance.")
* ''City of Laredo v. Laredo Merch. Ass'n'', 550 S.W.3d 586, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4472504869690593922#p589 589-90] (Tex. 2018) (footnotes omitted) ("The Texas Constitution states that city ordinances cannot conflict with state law. The Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act ('the Act') provides that '[a] local government . . . . Both sides of the debate and the many amici curiae who have weighed in assert public-policy arguments raising economic, environmental, and uniformity concerns. But those arguments are not ours to resolve. 'The wisdom or expediency of the law is the Legislature’s prerogative, not ours.' We must take statutes as they are written, and the one before us is written quite clearly. Its limitation on local control encompasses the ordinance.")


* ''S. Crushed Concrete, LLC v. City of Houston'', 398 S.W.3d 676, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6538298327110245649#p678 678] (Tex. 2013) ("TEX. CONST. art. XI, § 5. Home-rule cities have the full power of self-government and look to the Legislature, not for grants of power, but only for limitations on their powers. ''Lower Colo. River Auth. v. City of San Marcos'', 523 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tex.1975) (citing ''Forwood v. City of Taylor'', 147 Tex. 161, 214 S.W.2d 282 (1948)). '[I]f the Legislature decides to preempt a subject matter normally within a home-rule city's broad powers, it must do so with 'unmistakable clarity.'<nowiki>'</nowiki> ''In re Sanchez'', 81 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex.2002) (quoting ''Dallas Merchant's & Concessionaire's Ass'n v. City of Dallas'', 852 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.1993)).")
* ''S. Crushed Concrete, LLC v. City of Houston'', 398 S.W.3d 676, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6538298327110245649#p678 678] (Tex. 2013) ("Tex. Const. art. XI, § 5. Home-rule cities have the full power of self-government and look to the Legislature, not for grants of power, but only for limitations on their powers. ''Lower Colo. River Auth. v. City of San Marcos'', 523 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tex.1975) (citing ''Forwood v. City of Taylor'', 147 Tex. 161, 214 S.W.2d 282 (1948)). '[I]f the Legislature decides to preempt a subject matter normally within a home-rule city's broad powers, it must do so with 'unmistakable clarity.'<nowiki>'</nowiki> ''In re Sanchez'', 81 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex.2002) (quoting ''Dallas Merchant's & Concessionaire's Ass'n v. City of Dallas'', 852 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.1993)).")


* ''City of Houston v. Williams'', 353 S.W.3d 128, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2015178760561477079#p139 139-40] (Tex. 2011) ("Our Constitution ordains that 'no debt shall ever be created by any city, unless at the same time provision be made to assess and collect annually a sufficient sum to pay the interest thereon and create a sinking fund . . . . [W]e long ago noted that this prohibition does not extend to 'that class of pecuniary obligations in good faith intended to be, and lawfully, payable out of either the current revenues for the year of the contract or any other fund within the immediate control' of the municipality. ''McNeill v. City of Waco'', 89 Tex. 83, 33 S.W. 322, 323-24 (1895). In practice, municipal contract expenses can be covered with current revenues.")
* ''City of Houston v. Williams'', 353 S.W.3d 128, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2015178760561477079#p139 139-40] (Tex. 2011) ("Our Constitution ordains that 'no debt shall ever be created by any city, unless at the same time provision be made to assess and collect annually a sufficient sum to pay the interest thereon and create a sinking fund . . . . [W]e long ago noted that this prohibition does not extend to 'that class of pecuniary obligations in good faith intended to be, and lawfully, payable out of either the current revenues for the year of the contract or any other fund within the immediate control' of the municipality. ''McNeill v. City of Waco'', 89 Tex. 83, 33 S.W. 322, 323-24 (1895). In practice, municipal contract expenses can be covered with current revenues.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/8809"