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.
6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
LeCroy v. Hanlongreen2 sentences1995One purpose of the one-subject rule is to prevent the legislative practice of “logrolling,” which refers to “the inclusion in a bill of several subjects having no connection with each other in order to create a combination of various interests in support of the whole bill.” LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.1986); State Board of Insurance v. National Employees Benefit Administrators, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Tex.App. — Austin 1990, no writ). 1994One purpose of the one-subject rule is to prevent the legislative practice of "logrolling," which refers to "the inclusion in a bill of several subjects having no connection with each other in order to create a combination of various interests in support of the whole bill." LeCroy v. Hanlon , 713 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex. 1986); State Board of Insurance v. National Employees Benefit Administrators, Inc. , 786 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ). | 2 | 3 |
State Board of Insurance v. National Employee Benefit Administrators, Inc.green2 sentences1995One purpose of the one-subject rule is to prevent the legislative practice of “logrolling,” which refers to “the inclusion in a bill of several subjects having no connection with each other in order to create a combination of various interests in support of the whole bill.” LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.1986); State Board of Insurance v. National Employees Benefit Administrators, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Tex.App. — Austin 1990, no writ). 1994One purpose of the one-subject rule is to prevent the legislative practice of "logrolling," which refers to "the inclusion in a bill of several subjects having no connection with each other in order to create a combination of various interests in support of the whole bill." LeCroy v. Hanlon , 713 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex. 1986); State Board of Insurance v. National Employees Benefit Administrators, Inc. , 786 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Board of Water Eng of State v. Cty of San Antoniogreen1 sentence2015Bd. of Water Eng’gs v. City of San Antonio, 283 S.W.2d 722, 727 (Tex. 1955). | 1 | 1 |
Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullockgreen1 sentence1990Jessen Assoc., Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 600 (Tex.1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Andrews v. Ballard
green
1 sentence2015The Chiropractic Board’s statute of limitations defense fails as a matter of law. ................................................................................................. 54 PRAYER ..................................................................................................................59 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 61 APPENDIX ............................................................................ | 1 | 2015–2015 |
West Orange-Cove Consolidated I.S.D. v. Alanis
green
1 sentence2015West Orange-Cove, 107 S.W.3d at 600 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jones, Ex Parte Richard Dewayne
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Midlothian Butane Gas Co. v. Hilco Electric Cooperative, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003On appeal, the court addressed the question of “whether an electric cooperative company can create and own a ‘for-profit’ company” under the ECCA. 43 S.W.3d at 678 . 2003On appeal, the court addressed the question of "whether an electric cooperative company can create and own a `forprofit' company" under the ECCA. 43 S.W.3d at 678 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.