4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 47 (view source)
Revision as of 15:52, July 25, 2023
, July 25, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
* ''Tussey v. State'', 494 S.W.2d 866, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1098962787720458050#p869 869] (Tex.Crim.App. 1973) ("It is clear that these provisions of the Constitution were designed to require the passage of laws against the establishment of lotteries in various forms. . . . [T]he Legislature is likewise prohibited from indirectly doing so by way of exemption from criminal prosecution. See City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co., [] 100 S.W.2d 695, 700-702 (1936). It is clear that the Legislature was not authorized to exempt from the laws relating to lotteries the sale or drawing of a prize at a fair for the benefit of a church, religious society, veteran's organization, etc.") | * ''Tussey v. State'', 494 S.W.2d 866, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1098962787720458050#p869 869] (Tex.Crim.App. 1973) ("It is clear that these provisions of the Constitution were designed to require the passage of laws against the establishment of lotteries in various forms. . . . [T]he Legislature is likewise prohibited from indirectly doing so by way of exemption from criminal prosecution. See City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co., [] 100 S.W.2d 695, 700-702 (1936). It is clear that the Legislature was not authorized to exempt from the laws relating to lotteries the sale or drawing of a prize at a fair for the benefit of a church, religious society, veteran's organization, etc.") | ||
* ''City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co.'', 100 S.W.2d 695, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co.'', 100 S.W.2d 695, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/100_SW2_695.pdf#page=7 701] (Tex. 1936) ("If it be granted that the plan of defendant in error's 'Bank Night' was not a lottery because a charge was not made for the registration entitling one to participate in the drawing (and this is the only distinction which is here or could be made), then it clearly comes within the condemnatory terms of the Constitution, because it is a 'gift enterprise' involving the lottery principle, which the authorities hold is that principle by which something is to be given by chance. . . . Being condemned by the Constitution, it is against the 'public policy of the State.'") | ||
* ''Panas v. Texas Breeders & Racing Ass'n'', 80 S.W.2d 1020, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/080_S.W.2d_1020.pdf#page=5 1024] (Tex.Civ.App.–Galveston 1935, dism'd) ("We do not think the certificate system of betting on horse races can be called a lottery, as that term is used in section 47, article 3, of our Constitution, which prohibits 'the establishment of lotteries * * * or other evasions involving the lottery principle, established or existing in other States.' The Legislature in enacting the certificate system of conducting horse racing did not consider such legislation a violation of our constitutional prohibition against conducting lotteries.") | * ''Panas v. Texas Breeders & Racing Ass'n'', 80 S.W.2d 1020, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/080_S.W.2d_1020.pdf#page=5 1024] (Tex.Civ.App.–Galveston 1935, dism'd) ("We do not think the certificate system of betting on horse races can be called a lottery, as that term is used in section 47, article 3, of our Constitution, which prohibits 'the establishment of lotteries * * * or other evasions involving the lottery principle, established or existing in other States.' The Legislature in enacting the certificate system of conducting horse racing did not consider such legislation a violation of our constitutional prohibition against conducting lotteries.") | ||