|
|
| (458 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{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''. | | {{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 ?==
| |
|
| |
| State v. McDonald, 220 S.W.2d 732, 732 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1949, writ refused)
| |
|
| |
| Thomas, Interpretative Commentary, I TEX. CONST. art. III, § 56 (1955)
| |
|
| |
| Volume 25 American Jurisprudence (first ed.) Special Legislation 317
| |
|
| |
| City and County Home Rule in Texas John Pirie Keith 1951
| |
|
| |
| Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. 322, 328 (purpose of restriction)
| |
|
| |
| Ayars' App., 122 Pa. 266, 277 !!!!!
| |
|
| |
| Colley v. Jasper County, 337 Mo. 503, 85 SW2d 57
| |
|
| |
| Owen v. Baer (1899) 154 Mo. 434, 479-493, 55 S.W. 644, 657-661
| |
|
| |
| https://cite.case.law/pdf/967955/Owen%20v.%20Baer,%20154%20Mo.%20434%20(1900).pdf
| |
|
| |
| ==reviewed==
| |
|
| |
| x Langdeau v. Bouknight, 162 Tex. 42, 344 S.W.2d 435 (1961)
| |
|
| |
| x Rios v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 609, 288 S.W.2d 77 (1955)
| |
|
| |
| x Atwood v. Willacy Co. ND, 284 S.W.2d 275 (TCA 1955 nre)
| |
|
| |
| x San Antonio v. State, 270 S.W.2d 460 (TCA 1954 refd)
| |
|
| |
| x King v. Sheppard, 157 S.W.2d 682 (TCA 1941 refwm)
| |
|
| |
| x Womack v. Carson, 123 Tex. 260, 65 S.W.2d 485 (1933)
| |
|
| |
| x Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d 246 (1931)
| |
|
| |
| x Urban v. Harris County, 251 S.W. 594 (TCA 1923 refd)
| |
|
| |
| x Reed v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 177, 59 S.W. 255 (1900)
| |
|
| |
| == true ==
| |
|
| |
| The prohibition against special legislation will be practically a dead letter. As it is the practice in the Legislature to yield and grant any local measure asked by any representative in that body, it is only necessary to demand a particular enactment for a special purpose, and if there is no constitutional constraint, it is passed as a matter of course. The legislative discretion in such cases extend only to the representations of the member who is interested in the passage of the bill.
| |
|
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
| there is a legitimate relationship between the size of a city and the privilege of detaching a portion of its territory and that Art. 1266, based upon such relationship, is a valid statute
| |