4,834
edits
Texas Constitution talk:Article III, Section 56: Difference between revisions
Texas Constitution talk:Article III, Section 56 (edit)
Revision as of 19:16, September 26, 2023
, September 26, 2023→23-0656
m (→review) |
m (→23-0656) |
||
| Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
Healey v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 115, 120 (1871) (New York Supreme Court) ("Legislation to be local, within the meaning of the Constitution, must apply to and operate exclusively upon a portion of the territory of the State, and upon the people living there. If it applies to or operates upon persons or property beyond such locality, it is not local. I do not mean to say that a law to be local must be restricted in its operation to the person, property or rights which belong, if I may use the expression, within the locality within which the law is intended to operate. Such a construction would make all laws relating to municipal corporations general, as they affect all persons being within its limits, without regard to their place of permanent residence. But a law is not local that operates upon a subject in which the people at large are interested.") | Healey v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 115, 120 (1871) (New York Supreme Court) ("Legislation to be local, within the meaning of the Constitution, must apply to and operate exclusively upon a portion of the territory of the State, and upon the people living there. If it applies to or operates upon persons or property beyond such locality, it is not local. I do not mean to say that a law to be local must be restricted in its operation to the person, property or rights which belong, if I may use the expression, within the locality within which the law is intended to operate. Such a construction would make all laws relating to municipal corporations general, as they affect all persons being within its limits, without regard to their place of permanent residence. But a law is not local that operates upon a subject in which the people at large are interested.") | ||
result: same for auditor? | result: same for auditor? special law for ISDs | ||
Womack v. Carson, 70 S.W.2d 416, 417 (Tex. 1934) (on 2nd motion for rehearing) ("When the Legislature created a class and decreed regulations for the counties embraced in that class, and then excluded by name, counties embraced within the classification, the result was the enactment of a local or special law, and therefore the Legislature, in attempting to exclude Montgomery county and the other counties from the operation of the act, rendered invalid the entire act and not merely the portion of the act covered by the proviso, as correctly held by the Court of Civil Appeals, on the authority of Hall v. Bell County (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 178, expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Bell County v. Hall, 105 Tex. 558, 153 S. W. 121.") | |||
==houston== | ==houston== | ||