4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56 (view source)
Revision as of 13:32, August 21, 2023
, August 21, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
* ''O'Brien v. Amerman'', 247 S.W. 270, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/247_SW_270.pdf#page=2 271] (Tex. 1922) ("It is urged in support of the first two grounds of attack that the law was enacted for application by the city of Houston alone, between that port and the Gulf, when the conditions of pilotage were in no wise different there and elsewhere . . . . There are such substantial grounds for the classification made that the articles would stand the test of the strictest rule applied in such an inquiry. Classification of pilots according to port population and municipal terminal facilities, having a reasonable basis and operating uniformly on those coming within the same class, violates no provision of the Constitution.") | * ''O'Brien v. Amerman'', 247 S.W. 270, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/247_SW_270.pdf#page=2 271] (Tex. 1922) ("It is urged in support of the first two grounds of attack that the law was enacted for application by the city of Houston alone, between that port and the Gulf, when the conditions of pilotage were in no wise different there and elsewhere . . . . There are such substantial grounds for the classification made that the articles would stand the test of the strictest rule applied in such an inquiry. Classification of pilots according to port population and municipal terminal facilities, having a reasonable basis and operating uniformly on those coming within the same class, violates no provision of the Constitution.") | ||
* ''Bell County v. Hall'', 153 S.W. 121, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/153_SW_121.pdf | * ''Bell County v. Hall'', 153 S.W. 121, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/153_SW_121.pdf 121] (Tex. 1913) ("The case turns upon the constitutionality of the act of the Thirty-First Legislature, which, as stated, exempted Bell County by name from the operation of the county auditors' law. Section 56 of article 3 of the Constitution provides: 'The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law, authorizing * * * regulating the affairs of counties,' etc. The honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Third district held on this appeal that the act was within the constitutional prohibition. 138 S. W. 178. Upon a careful consideration of the question, we concur in this conclusion, and do not regard it necessary to supplement the able opinion written in the case by Chief Justice Key. In relieving Bell county from the operation of the general law, this act, in effect, changed the administration of its affairs in every particular provided by the general law, and thus by indirection regulated its affairs as effectually as though it had directly and affirmatively prescribed a different method for their management.") | ||
* ''Clark v. Finley'', 54 S.W. 343, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/054_SW_343.pdf#page=3 345] (Tex. 1899) ("Indeed, it is perhaps the exception when a statute is found which applies to every person or thing alike. . . . The tendency of the recent decisions upon the subject, as it seems to us, is to drift into refinements that are rather more specious than profitable. It is said in some of the cases that the classification must be reasonable; in others, that it must not be unreasonable or arbitrary, etc. If it is meant by this that the legislature cannot evade the prohibition of the constitution as to special laws by making a law applicable to a pretended class, which is, in fact, no class, we concur in the proposition.") | * ''Clark v. Finley'', 54 S.W. 343, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/054_SW_343.pdf#page=3 345] (Tex. 1899) ("Indeed, it is perhaps the exception when a statute is found which applies to every person or thing alike. . . . The tendency of the recent decisions upon the subject, as it seems to us, is to drift into refinements that are rather more specious than profitable. It is said in some of the cases that the classification must be reasonable; in others, that it must not be unreasonable or arbitrary, etc. If it is meant by this that the legislature cannot evade the prohibition of the constitution as to special laws by making a law applicable to a pretended class, which is, in fact, no class, we concur in the proposition.") | ||