enrolled bill rule in Texas

2015Texas courts follow a ~ ~ 9 r' (fF' ~ . ~ modified version of the enrolled bill rule; see Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Tex. 1990).

2015Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827,829 (Tex. 1990)("The enrolled bill rule is contrary to modern legal thinking, which does not favor conclusive presumptions that may produce results which do not accord with fact.").

2006As noted by the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals, "The enrolled bill rule has been repeatedly stated to be that a duly authenticated, approved, and enrolled statute imports absolute verity and is conclusive that an act was passed in every respect according to constitutional requirements." Beckendorff v. Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence Dist. , 558 S.W.2d 75, 78 (Tex. Civ.

2006As noted by the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals, "The enrolled bill rule has been repeatedly stated to be that a duly authenticated, approved, and enrolled statute imports absolute verity and is conclusive that an act was passed in every respect according to constitutional requirements." Beckendorff v. Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence Dist. , 558 S.W.2d 75, 78 (Tex. Civ.

2006App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1977), writ ref'd n.r.e. , 563 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1978); see, e.g., Jackson v. Walker , 121 Tex. 303 , 49 S.W.2d 693, 694 (1932); Wallace v. Ranger Hosp.

2006App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1977), writ ref'd n.r.e. , 563 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1978); see, e.g., Jackson v. Walker , 121 Tex. 303 , 49 S.W.2d 693, 694 (1932); Wallace v. Ranger Hosp.

2008Citing Nueces County v. King, 350 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1961, writ ref'd) and Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 154 S.W.2d 322, 326 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1941, writ ref'd), Fail-view asserts that when the voters adopted McKinney’s city charter in 1913 (and also when McKinney adopted ordinance 472 in 1958), “the strict law was that enrolled versions of legislative enactments are conclusively presumed to be the true version and that courts could not inquire beyond the enrolled version.” The supreme court last addressed the enrolled bill rule in Association of Texas Pro

1989The conclusiveness of the enrolled bill rule is well illustrated by the case of Ellison, supra at 326 .

2006App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1977), writ ref'd n.r.e. , 563 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1978); see, e.g., Jackson v. Walker , 121 Tex. 303 , 49 S.W.2d 693, 694 (1932); Wallace v. Ranger Hosp.

2006App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1977), writ ref'd n.r.e. , 563 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1978); see, e.g., Jackson v. Walker , 121 Tex. 303 , 49 S.W.2d 693, 694 (1932); Wallace v. Ranger Hosp.

2008Citing Nueces County v. King, 350 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1961, writ ref'd) and Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 154 S.W.2d 322, 326 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1941, writ ref'd), Fail-view asserts that when the voters adopted McKinney’s city charter in 1913 (and also when McKinney adopted ordinance 472 in 1958), “the strict law was that enrolled versions of legislative enactments are conclusively presumed to be the true version and that courts could not inquire beyond the enrolled version.” The supreme court last addressed the enrolled bill rule in Association of Texas Pro

2008Citing Nueces County v. King, 350 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1961, writ ref'd) and Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 154 S.W.2d 322, 326 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1941, writ ref'd), Fail-view asserts that when the voters adopted McKinney’s city charter in 1913 (and also when McKinney adopted ordinance 472 in 1958), “the strict law was that enrolled versions of legislative enactments are conclusively presumed to be the true version and that courts could not inquire beyond the enrolled version.” The supreme court last addressed the enrolled bill rule in Association of Texas Pro

2000See id.; see also Williams v. Taylor, 19 S.W. 156,157 (Tex. 1892) (stating that courts “should ponder well before undertaking to revise the proceedings of either house of the legislature, and to declare its action void merely on account of its failure to observe some rule ofprocedure prescribed in the constitution” and holding that constitution does not repeal common-law enrolled bill rule).

2000See id .; see also Williams v. Taylor, 19 S.W. 156 , 157 (Tex. 1892) (stating that courts "should ponder well before undertaking to revise the proceedings of either house of the legislature, and to declare its action void merely on account of its failure to observe some rule of procedure prescribed in the constitution" and holding that constitution does not repeal common-law enrolled bill rule).

2015See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1996Co. v. Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.1993) (holding that family member exclusions in automobile insurance contracts are invalid); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755-56 (Tex.1993) (holding that commencement of a lawsuit by an incapacitated person, considered alone, is insufficient to deny tolling of statute of limitations); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex.1993) (recognizing cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829-30 (Tex.1990) (recognizing a narrow exception to the enrolle

1990In Kansas the exception to the enrolled bill rule applies when the legislative journals “show affirmatively, clearly, conclusively and beyond all doubt that the bill as enrolled was not the bill passed.” Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 194 , 387 P.2d 771, 782 (1963).

1990In Kansas the exception to the enrolled bill rule applies when the legislative journals “show affirmatively, clearly, conclusively and beyond all doubt that the bill as enrolled was not the bill passed.” Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 194 , 387 P.2d 771, 782 (1963).

1990City of Houston v. Allred, 123 Tex. 334, 347-48 , 71 S.W.2d 251, 257 (1934); Jackson v. Walker, 121 Tex. 303, 307 , 49 S.W.2d 693, 694 (1932); Nueces County v. King, 350 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1961, writ ref'd); Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 154 S.W.2d 322, 326 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1941, writ ref’d).