|
|
| (425 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''. | | {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''. |
|
| |
| ==add ?==
| |
|
| |
| City and County Home Rule in Texas John Pirie Keith 1951
| |
|
| |
| Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. 322, 328 (purpose of restriction)
| |
|
| |
| Ayars' App., 122 Pa. 266, 277 !!!!!
| |
|
| |
| Colley v. Jasper County, 337 Mo. 503, 85 SW2d 57
| |
|
| |
| Owen v. Baer (1899) 154 Mo. 434, 479-493, 55 S.W. 644, 657-661
| |
|
| |
| https://cite.case.law/pdf/967955/Owen%20v.%20Baer,%20154%20Mo.%20434%20(1900).pdf
| |
|
| |
| ==review==
| |
|
| |
| Juliff Gardens v. TCEQ, 131 S.W.3d 271 (TA 2004)
| |
|
| |
| City of Irving v. DFW Airport, 894 S.W.2d 456 (TA 1995)
| |
|
| |
| Scurlock Permian Corp. v. Brazos Co., 869 S.W.2d 478 (TA 1993, denied)
| |
|
| |
| Kelly v. State, 724 S.W.2d 42 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)
| |
|
| |
| Suburban Util. Corp. v. State, 553 S.W.2d 396 (TCA 1977, nre)
| |
|
| |
| x Langdeau v. Bouknight, 162 Tex. 42, 344 S.W.2d 435 (1961)
| |
|
| |
| x Rios v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 609, 288 S.W.2d 77 (1955)
| |
|
| |
| x Atwood v. Willacy Co. ND, 284 S.W.2d 275 (TCA 1955 nre)
| |
|
| |
| x San Antonio v. State, 270 S.W.2d 460 (TCA 1954 refd)
| |
|
| |
| x King v. Sheppard, 157 S.W.2d 682 (TCA 1941 refwm)
| |
|
| |
| x Wood v. Marfa I.S.D, 123 S.W.2d 429 (TCA 1939 revog)
| |
|
| |
| x Watson v. Sabine Royalty Corp., 120 S.W.2d 938 (TCA 1938 ref'd)
| |
|
| |
| x Brownfield v. Tongate, 109 S.W.2d 352 (TCA 1937)
| |
|
| |
| x Ex Parte Heiling, 128 Tex.Cr.Rep. 399, 82 S.W.2d 644 (1935)
| |
|
| |
| x Womack v. Carson, 123 Tex. 260, 65 S.W.2d 485 (1933)
| |
|
| |
| x Randolph v State, 36 S.W.2d 484 (TCC 1931)
| |
|
| |
| x Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d 246 (1931)
| |
|
| |
| x Ward v. Harris County, 209 S.W. 792 (TCA 1919)
| |
|
| |
| x Altgelt v. Gutzeit, 109 Tex. 123, 201 S.W. 400 (1918)
| |
|
| |
| x Reed v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 177, 59 S.W. 255 (1900)
| |
|
| |
| x Cordova v. State, 6 TCR 207 (1879)
| |
|
| |
| x Opinion No. O-5326 (1943)
| |
|
| |
| ==brief==
| |
|
| |
| almost every local law affects people residing outside the locality, the distinction between general and local laws would seem, under the doctrine of these cases, to be very indefinite
| |
|
| |
| The prohibition against special legislation will be practically a dead letter. As it is the practice in the Legislature to yield and grant any local measure asked by any representative in that body, it is only necessary to demand a particular enactment for a special purpose, and if there is no constitutional constraint, it is passed as a matter of course. The legislative discretion in such cases extend only to the representations of the member who is interested in the passage of the bill.
| |
|
| |
| All counties where the same circumstances exist must have the same form of government.
| |
|
| |
| so that a law for one class can reasonably be expected to work equally well for every member of the class; while, if it works ill, it is almost certain to do so in every case, and that for some cause which lies deeper than the mere fact that the law is general. The number of places necessarily affected by a law prevents, moreover, the enactment of laws designed in the interest of one place only. If such a law be against the interest of the other communities affected by it, they will oppose its passage, and thus the unfair grant of special privileges will be prevented
| |
|
| |
| there is a legitimate relationship between the size of a city and the privilege of detaching a portion of its territory and the statute, based upon such relationship, is a valid statute
| |
|
| |
| The classification adopted must rest on real or substantial distinctions which renders one class, in truth, distinct or different from another class. There must exist reasonable justification for the class, that is, the basis of the classification invoked must be a direct relation to the purpose of the law.
| |