4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 47 (view source)
Revision as of 14:25, August 4, 2023
, August 4, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo 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.") | ||
* ''Castilleja v. Camero'', 414 S.W.2d 424, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6092186767625944942#p428 428] (Tex.1967) (J. Pope, dissenting) (" | * ''Castilleja v. Camero'', 414 S.W.2d 424, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6092186767625944942#p428 428] (Tex.1967) (J. Pope, dissenting) ("The majority has incorrectly identified the contract upon which plaintiff Severa Camero sued and must rely. The majority holds that the contract upon which plaintiff sued and recovered judgment was a Mexican contract where lotteries are legal. The contract between the lottery ticket owners and the Mexican National Lottery is one contract. The contract between the ticket holders themselves to share in and divide equally any winnings from the lottery is a distinct and separate contract. Plaintiff asserted no action against the Mexican National Lottery.") | ||
* ''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.'") | * ''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.'") | ||