4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 13 (view source)
Revision as of 16:20, July 6, 2023
, July 6, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
* ''Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co.'', 185 S.W. 556, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW_556.pdf#page=4 559] (Tex. 1916) (citations omitted) ("The true rule is that while technical defenses may be abrogated by statute those which affect a party's substantial equities may not be. . . . Their operation in the common law action for damages is not to acquit the employer because of his having breached no duty and being without fault, but they deny recovery to the employee because of his conduct, or, under the fellow servant doctrine, because the act is that of a co-employee, and the consequences imputed to the employee for that reason as a rule of law.") | * ''Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co.'', 185 S.W. 556, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW_556.pdf#page=4 559] (Tex. 1916) (citations omitted) ("The true rule is that while technical defenses may be abrogated by statute those which affect a party's substantial equities may not be. . . . Their operation in the common law action for damages is not to acquit the employer because of his having breached no duty and being without fault, but they deny recovery to the employee because of his conduct, or, under the fellow servant doctrine, because the act is that of a co-employee, and the consequences imputed to the employee for that reason as a rule of law.") | ||
* ''State v. Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co.'', 97 S.W. 71, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''State v. Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co.'', 97 S.W. 71, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/097_SW_71.pdf#page=8 78-79] (Tex. 1906) ("The declaration in the Constitution that 'fines' shall not be excessive makes it a question for the court to decide under all the facts of each particular case. . . . The assessment of a penalty of 100 per cent. for the failure to pay a tax would seem to be sufficiently excessive to authorize a court to declare it to be excessive, but the assessment of more than 4,000 per cent. upon the amount detained can leave no possible question that the penalties are out of all proportion to the amount of money detained, and the law must be held to be void for the penalties.") | ||
* ''Dillingham v. Putnam'', 14 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_014_SWR_303.pdf#page=3 305] (Tex. 1890) ("We do not wish to be understood to hold that hardships which might and would frequently result if the validity of such a law as that in question was sustained would furnish . . . but to hold that a law which denies to any individual, whether acting in his own right or in a fiduciary capacity, or to a corporation, the right to appeal unless a ''supersedeas'' bond is executed, is violative of the constitution in that it deprives this court, if given effect, of jurisdiction conferred on it by the constitution, and deprives the party seeking revision of a judgment here of remedy by due course of law.") | * ''Dillingham v. Putnam'', 14 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_014_SWR_303.pdf#page=3 305] (Tex. 1890) ("We do not wish to be understood to hold that hardships which might and would frequently result if the validity of such a law as that in question was sustained would furnish . . . but to hold that a law which denies to any individual, whether acting in his own right or in a fiduciary capacity, or to a corporation, the right to appeal unless a ''supersedeas'' bond is executed, is violative of the constitution in that it deprives this court, if given effect, of jurisdiction conferred on it by the constitution, and deprives the party seeking revision of a judgment here of remedy by due course of law.") | ||