Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 51: Difference between revisions

m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:
|historic=
|historic=


* ''Board of Managers of the Harris County Hospital District v. Pension Board of the Pension System for the City of Houston'', 449 S.W.2d 33, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=754209635729513848#p37 37] (Tex. 1969) ("Neither, we add, may it logically be argued that the transfer of the contributions is such a grant of public moneys as is prohibited by the Constitution. The question is controlled by our decision in Bexar County Hospital District v. Crosby, 160 Tex. 116, 327 S.W.2d 445 (1959). In that case, in an analogous situation, we held that a statutory requirement for transfer of delinquent city taxes to a hospital district did not offend the proscription of Section 51, Article III of the Constitution, inasmuch as such tax funds could only be used by the district for the purpose for which the taxes were levied. The same is true with respect to the transferred contributions in this case.")
* ''Board of Managers of the Harris County Hospital District v. Pension Board of the Pension System for the City of Houston'', 449 S.W.2d 33, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=754209635729513848#p37 37] (Tex. 1969) ("The question is controlled by our decision in Bexar County Hospital District v. Crosby, 160 Tex. 116, 327 S.W.2d 445 (1959). In that case, in an analogous situation, we held that a statutory requirement for transfer of delinquent city taxes to a hospital district did not offend the proscription of Section 51, Article III of the Constitution, inasmuch as such tax funds could only be used by the district for the purpose for which the taxes were levied. The same is true with respect to the transferred contributions in this case.")


* ''State v. City of Austin'', 331 S.W.2d 737, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3606363952092627207#p742 742-43] (Tex. 1960) ("The purpose of this section and of Article XVI, Section 6, of the Constitution is to prevent the application of public funds to private purposes . . . . The question to be decided then is whether the use of public funds to pay part or all of the loss or expense to which an individual or corporation is subjected by the state in the exercise of its police power is an unconstitutional donation for a private purpose. We think not provided the statute creating the right of reimbursement operates prospectively, deals with the matter in which the public has a real and legitimate interest, and is not fraudulent, arbitrary or capricious.")
* ''State v. City of Austin'', 331 S.W.2d 737, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3606363952092627207#p742 742-43] (Tex. 1960) ("The purpose of this section and of Article XVI, Section 6, of the Constitution is to prevent the application of public funds to private purposes . . . . The question to be decided then is whether the use of public funds to pay part or all of the loss or expense to which an individual or corporation is subjected by the state in the exercise of its police power is an unconstitutional donation for a private purpose. We think not provided the statute creating the right of reimbursement operates prospectively, deals with the matter in which the public has a real and legitimate interest, and is not fraudulent, arbitrary or capricious.")