4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 47 (view source)
Revision as of 14:35, August 4, 2023
, August 4, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
* ''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.") | * ''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.") | ||
* ''Brice v. State'', 242 S.W.2d 433, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5207143765870185632#p435 435] (Tex.Crim.App. 1951) (" ... .") | |||
* ''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.'") | ||