Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56 (view source)

Revision as of 09:07, August 28, 2023

154 bytes removed ,  August 28, 2023
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 45: Line 45:
* ''Rodriguez v. Gonzales'', 227 S.W.2d 791, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18224133104924555465#p793 793] (Tex. 1950) ("The primary purpose back of the adoption of this section was to secure that uniformity in the application of law which is essential to an ordered society. The section is not of doubtful construction, but is a plain mandate from the people to the Legislature. The prohibition is against any 'local or special law.' We are not concerned with any distinctions which may be drawn between a local law and a special law, for in our opinion the Act under review is both a local and a special law within the meaning of the constitutional provision. This is so clear to our minds that we shall not discuss the question at length.")
* ''Rodriguez v. Gonzales'', 227 S.W.2d 791, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18224133104924555465#p793 793] (Tex. 1950) ("The primary purpose back of the adoption of this section was to secure that uniformity in the application of law which is essential to an ordered society. The section is not of doubtful construction, but is a plain mandate from the people to the Legislature. The prohibition is against any 'local or special law.' We are not concerned with any distinctions which may be drawn between a local law and a special law, for in our opinion the Act under review is both a local and a special law within the meaning of the constitutional provision. This is so clear to our minds that we shall not discuss the question at length.")


* ''State v. McDonald'', 220 S.W.2d 732, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/220_SW2_732.pdf#page=2 733] (Tex.Civ.App.–Texarkana 1949, ref'd) ("If above House Concurrent Resolution be susceptible of the construction that it was the intent to waive immunity from liability as urged by plaintiffs, such would lend no validity to this judgment, for such resolution is unconstitutional. State Highway Dep’t v. Gorham, 139 Tex. 361, 162 S.W.2d 934; Matkins v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 953; Miller v. El Paso County, 136 Tex. 370, 150 S.W.2d 1000, 1001. The sections of the Constitution which vitiate the attempted waiver of immunity by the State for above alleged tort, are discussed in above cited cases. Appellees assert that the legislature in sessions after sessions has passed bills and resolutions, at times a field day, granting permission to people to sue the State for alleged negligent acts of agents and employees of the various departments of the State, and later has authorized payments of judgments recovered.")
* ''State v. McDonald'', 220 S.W.2d 732, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/220_SW2_732.pdf#page=2 733] (Tex.Civ.App.–Texarkana 1949, ref'd) (citations omitted) ("If above House Concurrent Resolution be susceptible of the construction that it was the intent to waive immunity from liability as urged by plaintiffs, such would lend no validity to this judgment, for such resolution is unconstitutional. The sections of the Constitution which vitiate the attempted waiver of immunity by the State for above alleged tort, are discussed in above cited cases. Appellees assert that the legislature in sessions after sessions has passed bills and resolutions, at times a field day, granting permission to people to sue the State for alleged negligent acts of agents and employees of the various departments of the State, and later has authorized payments of judgments recovered.")


* ''State Highway Department v. Gorham'', 162 S.W.2d 934, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/162_SW2_934.pdf#page=4 937] (Tex. 1942) ("If the Act be construed as a special law, depriving the State of a defense in a particular case, it is unconstitutional, as being violative of Section 3 of the Texas Bill of Rights, which provides that all men shall have equal rights. It is also violative of Article III, Section 56, of our State Constitution, which provides that no local or special law shall be enacted where a general law can be made applicable. . . . It certainly was not the intention of the framers of our Constitution that the State should have certain defenses against some individuals, but not against others similarly situated.")
* ''State Highway Department v. Gorham'', 162 S.W.2d 934, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/162_SW2_934.pdf#page=4 937] (Tex. 1942) ("If the Act be construed as a special law, depriving the State of a defense in a particular case, it is unconstitutional, as being violative of Section 3 of the Texas Bill of Rights, which provides that all men shall have equal rights. It is also violative of Article III, Section 56, of our State Constitution, which provides that no local or special law shall be enacted where a general law can be made applicable. . . . It certainly was not the intention of the framers of our Constitution that the State should have certain defenses against some individuals, but not against others similarly situated.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/6781"

Navigation menu