15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1945–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. City of Taylorgreen2 sentences2015App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ dism'd) (stating that to satisfy the public purpose test for a particular governmental entity, "[t]he purpose for which the ... payment ... was made must be within the powers of the entity ... making the payment"); see also Davis v. City of Taylor, 67 S.W.2d 1033, 1034 (Tex. 1934) (explaining that a payment is considered to serve a public purpose if"an object is beneficial to the inhabitants and directly connected with the local government"); Tex. Att'y Gen. 2008App.-Austin 1931), aff'd sub nom., Davis v. City of Taylor, 67 S.W.2d 1033, 1034 (Tex. 1934) (determining a public purpose is primarily alegislative function).7 Thus, article III, section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution does not prohibit the BRA from offering a lease discount and freeze·to certain lessees ifthe BRA's governing body reasonably determines that such lease terms satisfy the public purpose test. 7you explain that your "outside counsel has advised that such a discount or freeze would violate article III, section 52 of the Texas Constitution, as there is no specific amendment allowin | 3 | 3 |
Barrington v. Cokinosgreen2 sentences2006See Barrington v. Cokinos, 338 S.W.2d 133 , 142 (Tex. 1960) ("[A] court has no right to substitute its judgment and discretion for the judgment and discretion of the governing body upon whom the law visits the primary power and duty to act."). 2006See Barrington v. Cokinos, 338 S.W.2d 133, 142 (Tex. 1960) (“[A] court has no right to substitute its judgment and discretion for the judgment and discretion of the governing body upon whom the law visits the primary power and duty to act.“). | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Grimes County Taxpayers Ass'n v. Texas Municipal Power Agencygreen1 sentence2018Taxpayers, 565 S.W.2d at 265 (stating that to satisfy the public purpose test for a particular governmental entity, "[t]he purpose for which the ... payment ... was made must be within the powers of the entity ... making the payment"); TEX. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission
green
2 sentences2022League, 74 S.W.3d at 385 . (4) The Provision affords a clear public benefit in return As for the second prong of the constitutionality question (which somewhat overlaps with the third factor of the public-purpose test), the trial court also correctly concluded that the City has established that Association Leave Provision “benefits the public as a whole, and not merely a particular private interest.” See id. 2022League, 74 S.W.3d at 385 . (4) The Provision affords a clear public benefit in return As for the second prong of the constitutionality question (which somewhat overlaps with the third factor of the public-purpose test), the trial court also correctly concluded that the City has established that Association Leave Provision “benefits the public as a whole, and not merely a particular private interest.” See id. | 3 | 2011–2022 |
Dodson v. Marshall
green
2 sentences1990See. e.a., Davis v. Ci v of Tavlor, suora, at 1034; pod o Marshall 118 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Civ. 1990See, e.g., Davis v. City of Taylor, supra, at 1034 ; Dodson v. Marshall, 118 S.W.2d 621 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1938, writ dism'd w.o.j.). | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Maher v. Lasater
green
1 sentence1998Lasater , 354 S.W.2d 923 , 925 (Tex. 1962). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Estate of Waggoner v. Gleghorn
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 49 , The neighborhood road statute has not been substantively amended since the Maher decision in 1962.’ It remains without a public purpose requirement for the taking of private property, in contravention of article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Roberts v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
green
1 sentence1987In Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. Higginbotham, 143 S.W.2d 79 , 89 (Tex. 1940), the court upheld a legislative determination that providing housing for low-income families serves a public purpose. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of Galveston
green
1 sentence1947Commonwealth v. City of Cov- in&on, 128 Kg. 36, 10’7 S.W. 231; 14 L.R.A., N.S., 1214; Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of.Galveston, 63 Tex. 14 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Commonwealth v. City of Covington
green
2 sentences1945Commonwealth v. City of Covington, 128 Ky. 36 , 107 S. W. 231 ; 14 L. 1945Commonwealth v. City of Covington, 128 Ky. 36 , 107 S. W. 231 ; 14 L. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.