Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1941–1980 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Bullockgreen2 sentences1980In Robinson v. Bullock, supra at 198, the court, observing that implied repeals are not favored, sets forth the Texas law on interpretation of implied repeals: “A general repealing clause is subject to the same rules of interpretation as other enactments, and the intent of the Legislature must prevail over the literal construction. . . . 1980Robinson v. Bullock, 553 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r. e.), cert. denied 436 U.S. 918 , 98 S.Ct. 2264 , 56 L.Ed.2d 759 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Calvertgreen1 sentence1977First National Bank of Giddings v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co., 274 S.W. 127 (Tex.Com.App.1925, holding approved); Ex parte Coleman, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 37 , 245 S.W.2d 712 (1951); Miller v. Calvert, 418 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.Civ.App. | 1 | 1 |
City of Beaumont Independent School Dist. v. Broadusgreen1 sentence1958See City of Beaumont Independent School District v. Broadus, Tex.Civ.App., 182 S.W.2d 406 , writ ref.; City of Fort Worth v. State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First Nat. Bank of Giddings v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1977First National Bank of Giddings v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co., 274 S.W. 127 (Tex.Com.App.1925, holding approved); Ex parte Coleman, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 37 , 245 S.W.2d 712 (1951); Miller v. Calvert, 418 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.Civ.App. 1966Section 7 of the Acts of 1925 contained a general repealing cause of "all laws In conflict with the provisions hereof." A general repealing clause is effective to repeal all prior general laws, or parts thereof, which are repugnant to, and inconsistentand irreconcilablewith the repealing statute. 82 C.J.S. 476, statutes, Sea. 285; First National Rank v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co.. 274 S.W. 127 IComm. | 2 | 1966–1977 |
Jefferson County v. Board of County & District Road Indebtedness
green
2 sentences1967It is not sufficient that there be a discrepancy between different parts of a system of legislation upon the same general subject; there must be a conflict between different statutes upon the same specific subject.” In Jefferson County v. Board of County and District Road Indebtedness, 143 Tex. 99 , 182 S.W.2d 908 (1944), the court said: “Ordinarily, a general repealing clause of inconsistent Acts does not, when contained in a general Act, operate to repeal a local or special Act, even though the provisions of the two Acts are in some respects inconsistent. 59 C.J. 904. 1967It is not sufficient that there be a discrepancy between different parts of a system of legislation upon the same general subject; there must be a conflict between different statutes upon the same specific subject.” In Jefferson County v. Board of County and District Road Indebtedness, 143 Tex. 99 , 182 S.W.2d 908 (1944), the court said: “Ordinarily, a general repealing clause of inconsistent Acts does not, when contained in a general Act, operate to repeal a local or special Act, even though the provisions of the two Acts are in some respects inconsistent. 59 C.J. 904. | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Robertson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1957In Robertson v. State, 70 Texas Cr. 1957In Robertson v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 307 , 159 S.W. 713, 722 , this Court said, “We recognize the rule that repeals by implication are not favored; yet there is another rule which is elementary and equally as well established, and that is: When a new law covers the whole subject matter of an old one, and prescribes a different penalty than provided in the old, that the former is repealed by implication. ‡ ■ * * It is needless to cite the many cases of all the courts and all the textbooks in support of this proposition.” Having concluded that we were in error in our original disposition of this | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Fox v. Kneip
green
1 sentence1980Robinson v. Bullock, 553 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r. e.), cert. denied 436 U.S. 918 , 98 S.Ct. 2264 , 56 L.Ed.2d 759 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Robinson v. Bullock
green
1 sentence1980Robinson v. Bullock, 553 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r. e.), cert. denied 436 U.S. 918 , 98 S.Ct. 2264 , 56 L.Ed.2d 759 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Frisco Land & Mining Co. v. California
green
1 sentence1980Robinson v. Bullock, 553 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r. e.), cert. denied 436 U.S. 918 , 98 S.Ct. 2264 , 56 L.Ed.2d 759 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ex Parte Coleman
green
2 sentences1977First National Bank of Giddings v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co., 274 S.W. 127 (Tex.Com.App.1925, holding approved); Ex parte Coleman, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 37 , 245 S.W.2d 712 (1951); Miller v. Calvert, 418 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.Civ.App. 1977First National Bank of Giddings v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co., 274 S.W. 127 (Tex.Com.App.1925, holding approved); Ex parte Coleman, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 37 , 245 S.W.2d 712 (1951); Miller v. Calvert, 418 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.Civ.App. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State Board of Insurance v. Betts
green
1 sentence1958In State Board of Insurance v. Betts, Tex., 315 S.W.2d 279 , at page 281, the Supreme Court of Texas stated: “The problem of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Gaddes Thomas v. Terrell
green
2 sentences1941In Gaddis et al. v. Terrell, Land Commissioner, 101 Tex. 574 , 110 S.W. 429 , the court said: “It is clear that there is [in that case] no express repeal; that is, the provision in question is not directly pointed out as expressly repealed. 1941In Gaddis et al. v. Terrell, Land Commissioner, 101 Tex. 574 , 110 S.W. 429 , the court said: “It is clear that there is [in that case] no express repeal; that is, the provision in question is not directly pointed out as expressly repealed. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.