4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56 (view source)
Revision as of 14:33, September 6, 2023
, September 6, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
* ''Bell County v. Hall'', 153 S.W. 121, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/153_SW_121.pdf#page=2 122] (Tex. 1913) ("The honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Third district held on this appeal that the act . . . . 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.") | * ''Bell County v. Hall'', 153 S.W. 121, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/153_SW_121.pdf#page=2 122] (Tex. 1913) ("The honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Third district held on this appeal that the act . . . . 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.") | ||
* ''Smith v. State'', 113 S.W. 289, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_289.pdf#page=7 295] (Tex.Crim.App. 1908) (P.J. Davidson, dissenting) (" ... .") | * ''Smith v. State'', 113 S.W. 289, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_289.pdf#page=7 295] (Tex.Crim.App. 1908) (P.J. Davidson, dissenting) ("That to make it a general law, it must not legislate only | ||
for present or unchangeable conditions. I am persuaded that no case can be found in the reports which holds a law to be general which failed to provide for and anticipate the wants of the future. On the contrary, whenever the question has arisen, every court has held a law special which created a classification which was arbitrary or illusive, and which operated upon unchangeable conditions and failed to provide for future localities or objects to come within the class, no matter how ingenious the evasion employed to make a special law assume the guise of a general law may have been. Perhaps, there may be no limit to the ingenuity displayed by legislative bodies intentionally or otherwise, to make a mere designation assume the form of a classification.") | |||
* ''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.") | ||