Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 52-f: Difference between revisions

From TLG
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
Line 18: Line 18:


|seo_title=Article III, Section 52-f of the Texas Constitution ("Private Road Work by Counties with Population of 7,500 or less")
|seo_title=Article III, Section 52-f of the Texas Constitution ("Private Road Work by Counties with Population of 7,500 or less")
|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 52-f, small counties, private purpose
|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 52-f, small counties, private roads
|seo_description=A county with 7,500 or fewer persons may work on private roads if it collects a reasonable charge.
|seo_description=A county with 7,500 or fewer persons may perform work on a private road if it collects a reasonable charge.
|seo_image=Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3.jpg
|seo_image=Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3.jpg
|seo_image_alt=Article III: Legislative Department
|seo_image_alt=Article III: Legislative Department

Latest revision as of 16:43, August 16, 2023

As amended November 3, 2015:

A county with a population of 7,500 or less, according to the most recent federal census, may construct and maintain private roads if it imposes a reasonable charge for the work. The Legislature by general law may limit this authority. Revenue received from private road work may be used only for the construction, including right-of-way acquisition, or maintenance of public roads.

Editor Comments

This section was added in 1980. It has been amended once. The 2015 amendment increased the population limit from 5,000 to 7,500.

Note that the Texas Attorney General, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. GA-85 (2003) (citations and footnote omitted), opined that: "Furthermore, in the absence of a constitutional provision like article III, section 52f, a statute authorizing a county to maintain or work on private property would have to comply with article V, section 18(b), which limits commissioners courts' jurisdiction to 'county business.' . . . These limitations apply to the use of county labor, materials, and equipment."

Attorney Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

None.

Historic Decisions

  • Ex parte Conger, 357 S.W.2d 740, 743 (Tex. 1962) ("In this case it is admitted that the relators had full knowledge of the injunctive order and the reasons for its issuance. Russell Arnold who was engaged in hauling, moving dirt and in other construction work in Upton County, filed his petition against the four County Commissioners and Upton County alleging that the Commissioners had been cleaning off and filling in lots, hauling for private use and otherwise using county equipment for the benefit of private persons and thus materially injuring his business and causing a substantial loss of patronage and profits.")

Library Resources

Online Resources