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

From TLG
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Admin moved page Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 52f to Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 52-f without leaving a redirect: new format)
mNo edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 52f of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Private Road Work by Counties with Population of 7,500 or less"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=As amended November 3, 2015:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 52-f of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Private Road Work by Counties with Population of 7,500 or less"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=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.'''
'''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.'''
Line 5: Line 5:
|editor=
|editor=


Note that the Texas Attorney General, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2003/pdf/ga0085.pdf#page=3 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."
This section was added in 1980. It has been amended once. The 2015 amendment increased the population limit from 5,000 to 7,500.


|other=
Note that the Texas Attorney General, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2003/ga0085.pdf#page=3 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."
 
None.


|recent=
|recent=
Line 19: Line 17:
* ''Ex parte Conger'', 357 S.W.2d 740, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15160967397958920489#p743 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.")
* ''Ex parte Conger'', 357 S.W.2d 740, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15160967397958920489#p743 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.")


|seo_title=Article III, Section _ of the Texas Constitution (" ... ")
|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 _, Texas Legislature, ...
|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 52-f, small counties, private roads
|seo_description=The legislative power of Texas is vested in a Senate and House of Representatives.
|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