TLG

Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 18: Difference between revisions

Constitution Discussion

Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 18 (view source)

Revision as of 10:50, September 28, 2023

78 bytes removed ,  September 28, 2023
m
no edit summary
imported>Admin
No edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 43: Line 43:
* ''Avery v. Midland County'', 406 S.W.2d 422, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11372107594211734005#p428 428] (Tex. 1966) ("[E]qual rights and equal protection of laws require equality in political rights and there may be circumstances under which equality in population of political subdivisions electing representatives to an overall governing body is essential to equality in voting rights. On the other hand, the convenience of the people in the particular circumstances of a county may require—and constitutionally justify—a rational variance from equality in population in commissioners precincts upon the basis of additional relevant factors such as number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads and taxable values.")
* ''Avery v. Midland County'', 406 S.W.2d 422, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11372107594211734005#p428 428] (Tex. 1966) ("[E]qual rights and equal protection of laws require equality in political rights and there may be circumstances under which equality in population of political subdivisions electing representatives to an overall governing body is essential to equality in voting rights. On the other hand, the convenience of the people in the particular circumstances of a county may require—and constitutionally justify—a rational variance from equality in population in commissioners precincts upon the basis of additional relevant factors such as number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads and taxable values.")


* ''Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Mann'', 140 S.W.2d 1098, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/10245878/Harris%20County%20Flood%20Control%20Dist.%20v.%20Mann,%20140%20S.W.2d%201098%20(1940).pdf#page=8 1105] (Tex. 1940) ("[I]t is already settled that the implied prohibition contained in Section 18 of Article V [], against requiring Commissioners' Courts to perform duties not classed as 'county business,' cannot be confined in such a narrow groove as to prohibit the Legislature from committing to commissioners' courts the governing affairs of conservation and reclamation districts, such as this, created by the Legislature under the express authority of Section 59 of Article XVI of our State Constitution,—where the district is located within the county of the commissioners' court authorized and required to govern it.")
* ''Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Mann'', 140 S.W.2d 1098, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/140_SW2_1098.pdf#page=8 1105] (Tex. 1940) ("[I]t is already settled that the implied prohibition contained in Section 18 of Article V [], against requiring Commissioners' Courts to perform duties not classed as 'county business,' cannot be confined in such a narrow groove as to prohibit the Legislature from committing to commissioners' courts the governing affairs of conservation and reclamation districts, such as this, created by the Legislature under the express authority of Section 59 of Article XVI of our State Constitution,–where the district is located within the county of the commissioners' court authorized and required to govern it.")


* ''Stovall v. Shivers'', 103 S.W.2d 363, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/10255038/Stovall%20v.%20Shivers,%20103%20S.W.2d%20363%20(1937).pdf#page=3 365-66] (Tex. 1937) (citations omitted) (If the order of the commissioners court of April, 1931, be invalid, then there can be no question of the right of the district court under section 8 of article 5 of the Constitution and under article . . . to review same and prevent its enforcement. It is also true that if in the passage of the order of April, 1931, the commissioners court acted arbitrarily without the exercise of any discretion, or clearly abused its discretion, the district court in the exercise of its equitable powers can review and abrogate such action; and especially if the action of the court involves a failure to perform a duty affecting the public welfare.")
* ''Stovall v. Shivers'', 103 S.W.2d 363, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/10255038/Stovall%20v.%20Shivers,%20103%20S.W.2d%20363%20(1937).pdf#page=3 365-66] (Tex. 1937) (citations omitted) (If the order of the commissioners court of April, 1931, be invalid, then there can be no question of the right of the district court under section 8 of article 5 of the Constitution and under article . . . to review same and prevent its enforcement. It is also true that if in the passage of the order of April, 1931, the commissioners court acted arbitrarily without the exercise of any discretion, or clearly abused its discretion, the district court in the exercise of its equitable powers can review and abrogate such action; and especially if the action of the court involves a failure to perform a duty affecting the public welfare.")
Line 51: Line 51:
* ''Williams v. Castleman'', 247 S.W. 263, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/10302571/Williams%20v.%20Castleman,%20247%20S.W.%20263%20(1922).pdf#page=5 267] (Tex. 1922) ("It is plain from section 18, art. 5, of the Constitution that its prime purpose in not fixing definitely the number of justice precincts in any county, and the number of justices in any particular precinct was, as it states, 'the convenience of the people'; that is, to give to the commissioners' court some discretion so that the number of precincts may be made to meet the changing needs of the people. The object of the Constitution in providing for two justices of the peace in precincts containing 8,000 or more inhabitants is the same as that declared in the previous paragraph of the same section—that is, for the convenience of the people.")
* ''Williams v. Castleman'', 247 S.W. 263, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/10302571/Williams%20v.%20Castleman,%20247%20S.W.%20263%20(1922).pdf#page=5 267] (Tex. 1922) ("It is plain from section 18, art. 5, of the Constitution that its prime purpose in not fixing definitely the number of justice precincts in any county, and the number of justices in any particular precinct was, as it states, 'the convenience of the people'; that is, to give to the commissioners' court some discretion so that the number of precincts may be made to meet the changing needs of the people. The object of the Constitution in providing for two justices of the peace in precincts containing 8,000 or more inhabitants is the same as that declared in the previous paragraph of the same section—that is, for the convenience of the people.")


* ''Clark v. Finley'', 54 S.W. 343, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_054_SWR_343.pdf#page=5 347] (Tex. 1899) (citation omitted) ("But we do not concur in the proposition that the determination of the number of deputies which may be employed by an officer is a county affair, within the meaning of that provision of the constitution which prescribes that the commissioners' court 'shall exercise such powers and jurisdiction over all county business as is conferred by this constitution and the laws of this state, or as may be hereafter prescribed.' Art. 5, sec. 18. The officers to whom the provision applies, though called county officers, are in fact officers of the state and the number of deputies to be allowed to each cannot properly be deemed a county affair.")
* ''Clark v. Finley'', 54 S.W. 343, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/054_SW_343.pdf#page=5 347] (Tex. 1899) (citation omitted) ("But we do not concur in the proposition that the determination of the number of deputies which may be employed by an officer is a county affair, within the meaning of that provision of the constitution which prescribes that the commissioners' court 'shall exercise such powers and jurisdiction over all county business as is conferred by this constitution and the laws of this state, or as may be hereafter prescribed.' Art. 5, sec. 18. The officers to whom the provision applies, though called county officers, are in fact officers of the state and the number of deputies to be allowed to each cannot properly be deemed a county affair.")


* ''Fears v. Nacogdoches County'', 9 S.W. 265, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/2192712/Fears%20v.%20Nacogdoches%20County,%2071%20Tex.%20337%20(1888).pdf#page=3 266] (Tex. 1888) ("If we are to resort to general principles, we are at a loss to determine upon what ground the county is to be held liable for [the physician's] services. A coroner's inquest is a proceeding by and on behalf of the state, and is the first step in a proper case for the detection and punishment of the offender when an unlawful homicide has been committed. The justice of the peace, who in our state conducts the proceeding, is ''ex officio'' coroner, though sometimes called a precinct or county officer, and is to all intents and purposes an officer of the state, and in exercising his function acts for the state, and not for the county.")
* ''Fears v. Nacogdoches County'', 9 S.W. 265, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/2192712/Fears%20v.%20Nacogdoches%20County,%2071%20Tex.%20337%20(1888).pdf#page=3 266] (Tex. 1888) ("If we are to resort to general principles, we are at a loss to determine upon what ground the county is to be held liable for [the physician's] services. A coroner's inquest is a proceeding by and on behalf of the state, and is the first step in a proper case for the detection and punishment of the offender when an unlawful homicide has been committed. The justice of the peace, who in our state conducts the proceeding, is ''ex officio'' coroner, though sometimes called a precinct or county officer, and is to all intents and purposes an officer of the state, and in exercising his function acts for the state, and not for the county.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/1402...7674"