TLG

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 13: Difference between revisions

Constitution Discussion

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 13 (view source)

Revision as of 16:22, July 6, 2023

5 bytes removed ,  July 6, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 45: Line 45:
* ''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.")
* ''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/014_SW_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.")


* ''Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Locke'', 63 Tex. 623, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/63_Tex._623.pdf#page=6 628] (1885) ("Such a construction as that contended for by the appellees cannot be maintained either upon reason or by authority. If it is true, then there is no court in which appellant can secure an adjudication upon its rights. And that would render the declaration in the Bill of Rights, that 'all courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law,' the merest bombast. What profit is it to appellant that 'all courts are open,' if in none of these it can secure a remedy 'by due course of law?'")
* ''Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Locke'', 63 Tex. 623, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/63_Tex._623.pdf#page=6 628] (1885) ("Such a construction as that contended for by the appellees cannot be maintained either upon reason or by authority. If it is true, then there is no court in which appellant can secure an adjudication upon its rights. And that would render the declaration in the Bill of Rights, that 'all courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law,' the merest bombast. What profit is it to appellant that 'all courts are open,' if in none of these it can secure a remedy 'by due course of law?'")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/4416"