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

* ''Smith v. State'', 113 S.W. 289, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_289.pdf#page=12 300] (Tex.Crim.App. 1908) (P.J. Davidson, dissenting) ("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.")

* ''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.")