Sec. 1.001. PURPOSE OF CODE. (a) This code is enacted as a part of the state's continuing statutory revision program, begun by the Texas Legislative Council in 1963 as directed by the legislature in the law codified as Section 323.007, Government Code. The program contemplates a topic-by-topic revision of the state's general and permanent statute law without substantive change.
(b) Consistent with the objectives of the statutory revision program, the purpose of this code is to make the law encompassed by this code more accessible and understandable by:
(1) rearranging the statutes into a more logical order;
(2) employing a format and numbering system designed to facilitate citation of the law and to accommodate future expansion of the law;
(3) eliminating repealed, duplicative, unconstitutional, expired, executed, and other ineffective provisions; and
(4) restating the law in modern American English to the greatest extent possible.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case:
Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “[3] TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 1.001(b). [4] Id., § 1.”
Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. App. 2002).
“See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 1.001 (a) (Vernon 1999) (providing that transportation code was enacted as part of a “topic-by-topic revision of the state’s general and permanent statute law without substantive change.”
State v. Luxon, 230 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. App. 2007).
“See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 1.001 (Vernon 1999).”
Hardin, Sheila Jo (Tex. Crim. App. 2022).
“42 TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 1.001. Hardin — 21 Indeed, we held in Leming that the officer in that case had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant for driving while intoxicated regardless of whether he failed to maintain a single lane.”
Karl Frederick Schultz v. State (Tex. App. 2014).
“” TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 1.001(a). Because the creation of the Transportation Code was not intended to make substantive changes to the statutes and because the phrase “to be considered valid under the provisions of this section” was removed because it was considered redundant,…”
— Tex. Transp. Code § 1.001(a) — 2 cases
Karl Frederick Schultz v. State (Tex. App. 2014).
“” TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 1.001(a). Because the creation of the Transportation Code was not intended to make substantive changes to the statutes and because the phrase “to be considered valid under the provisions of this section” was removed because it was considered redundant,…”
— Tex. Transp. Code § 1.001(b) — 2 cases
Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
“[3] TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 1.001(b). [4] Id., § 1.”
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.