Texas Codes
Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 32.002 (2026)
Construction Of Chapter
✓ laws through the 89th Legislature (2025)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 32.002. CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied in relation to applicable federal laws and regulations so that adequate and high quality health care may be made available to all children and adults who need the care and are not financially able to pay for it.
(b) If a provision of this chapter conflicts with a provision of the Social Security Act or any other federal act and renders the state program out of conformity with federal law to the extent that federal matching money is not available to the state, the conflicting provision of state law shall be inoperative to the extent of the conflict but shall not affect the remainder of this chapter.
Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2348, ch. 842, art. 1, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Texas, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998).
Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Texas, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998). “TEX. HUM. RES.CODE § 32.002. This section provides indigent children and adults with a statutory interest in maintaining the flow of federal health care funds, but it does not give Planned Parenthood, a conduit for these taxpayer-supported services, a similar statutory interest.”
Texas Dep't of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014). “Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 32.002(b). . Appellees additionally sought a declaration that the rule provisions violated the aforementioned 2012-13 appropriations rider, but that claim, again, is now moot.”
Texas Dep't of Health v. Texas Health Enter., Inc., 871 S.W.2d 498 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993). “002 provides, in pertinent part, "[I]f a provision of this chapter conflicts with a provision of the Social Security Act or any other federal act and renders the state program out of conformity with federal law to the extent that federal matching money is not available to the…”
Chris Traylor v. Diana D., No. 03-15-00657-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 12, 2015). “5 TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 32.002 ............”
RGV Smiles by Rocky L. Salinas D.D.S. P.A. & Rocky Salinas, No. 20-70209 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2021). “70 TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 32.002. 71 Id. § 36.”
Texas Dep't of State Health Servs. & Kyle Janek v. Marcela Balquinta Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Fam. Plan. & Preventative Health Servs., Inc., No. 03-13-00063-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 9, 2014). “Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 32.002(b). 29 Appellees additionally sought a declaration that the rule provisions violated the aforementioned 2012-13 appropriations rider, but that claim, again, is now moot.”
Noah S. Bunker v. Tracy D. Strandhagen, No. 03-14-00510-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 23, 2015). “He must, indeed, have a legitimate claim TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 32.002. This section pro- of entitlement to it.”
Sensitive Care, Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Human Servs., No. 03-95-00481-CV (Tex. App.—Austin July 31, 1996). “Laws 2920 , 2921-24; Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 32.002 -.042 (West 1990 & Supp.”
Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 32.002(b): 2 cases
Texas Dep't of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014). “Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 32.002(b). . Appellees additionally sought a declaration that the rule provisions violated the aforementioned 2012-13 appropriations rider, but that claim, again, is now moot.”
Texas Dep't of State Health Servs. & Kyle Janek v. Marcela Balquinta Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Fam. Plan. & Preventative Health Servs., Inc., No. 03-13-00063-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 9, 2014). “Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 32.002(b). 29 Appellees additionally sought a declaration that the rule provisions violated the aforementioned 2012-13 appropriations rider, but that claim, again, is now moot.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.