Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 SW2D 467 - Bexar County v. Tynan

Bexar County v. Tynan’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2008

20 state decisions

5019361940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Clark, Sheriff v. Finley, Comptroller · James v. Barry · Altgelt v. Gutzeit · City of Fort Worth v. Bobbitt · Harbert v. Mabry

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “. “Section 56, Article III, of the State Constitution, Vernon’s Ann. St., reads, in part, as follows: “ ‘Sec. 56. The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law, authorizing : * * “ ‘Regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards or school district; “ ‘Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers, in counties, cities, towns, election or school districts; $ * * * * “ ‘And in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; * * “The purpose of this constitutional inhibition against the enactment of local or special laws is a wholesome one. It is intended to prevent the granting of special privileges and to secure uniformity of law throughout the State as far as possible. It is said that at an early period in many of the states the practice of enacting special and local laws became” an efficient means for the easy enactment of laws for the advancement of personal rather than public interests, and encouraged the reprehensible practice of trading and “logrolling.” ’ It was for the suppression of such practices that such a provision was adopted in this and many of the other states of the Union. 25 R.C.L., p. 820, Sec. 68. “Notwithstanding the above constitutional provision, the courts recognize in the Legislature a rather broad power to make classifications for legislative purposes and to enact laws for the regulation thereof, even though”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the attempted classification is unreasonable and arbitrary to such degree as to indicate beyond doubt that the purpose of the Legislature was to single out one county and to attempt to legislate upon the question of the compensation of its officers, and not upon the subject generally....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The Legislature may, upon a proper and reasonable classification, enact a general law which at the time of its enactment is applicable to only one county; provided its application is not so inflexibly fixed as to prevent it ever being applicable to other counties.” '”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.