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

m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
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.")