4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 13 (view source)
Revision as of 16:18, July 6, 2023
, July 6, 2023no edit summary
m (Text replacement - ")↵↵}}" to ") |seo_title= |seo_keywords= |seo_description= |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights }}") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
* ''Lebohm v. City of Galveston'', 275 S.W.2d 951, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1273732004912314358#p955 955] (Tex. 1955) ("Thus it may be seen that legislative action withdrawing common-law remedies for well established common-law causes of action for injuries to one's 'lands, goods, person or reputation' is sustained only when it is reasonable in substituting other remedies, or when it is a reasonable exercise of the police power in the interest of the general welfare. Legislative action of this type is not sustained when it is arbitrary or unreasonable. . . . [T]he charter provision represents an attempted exercise of legislative power which is prohibited by Section 13 of Article I of the Constitution.") | * ''Lebohm v. City of Galveston'', 275 S.W.2d 951, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1273732004912314358#p955 955] (Tex. 1955) ("Thus it may be seen that legislative action withdrawing common-law remedies for well established common-law causes of action for injuries to one's 'lands, goods, person or reputation' is sustained only when it is reasonable in substituting other remedies, or when it is a reasonable exercise of the police power in the interest of the general welfare. Legislative action of this type is not sustained when it is arbitrary or unreasonable. . . . [T]he charter provision represents an attempted exercise of legislative power which is prohibited by Section 13 of Article I of the Constitution.") | ||
* ''Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co.'', 185 S.W. 556, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''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/Vol_097_SWR_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.") | * ''State v. Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co.'', 97 S.W. 71, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_097_SWR_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.") | ||