Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-3242 Page: 4 of 5
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Pt Honorable L. J. Sulak, page 4
City of Mobile vs. Rouse, 27 Ala. ADp. 344,
173 Southern 284 (Two judges in agreement, one judge
In re lazas, 22 Calif. App. (2d) 161, 70 Pao. (2d)
962 (Opinion by full oourt).
State vs. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 Southern 394
(Four judges in agreement, two dissenting).
Dunoan vs. City of Des Moines, 222 loa 218, 288
N.V. 647 (Opinion by full court).
In the following jurisdictions, such legislation
has been held constitutional
Herring vs. Arnold, 183 Okla. 592, 82 Pao. (24)
977 (Five judges agreeing, three dissenting, one judge
Board of Barber rExainers vs. Parker, 190 La.
214, 182 Southern 486 (On original hearing, Act held
unconstitutional, four judges agreeing, three dissenting;
on rehearing, Act held to be constitutional, five judges
agreeing, two dissenting).
State vs. Fasekas, 223 Wis. 356, 269 L.V. 700,
(Four judges agreeing, three dissenting).
State vs. Masters (Minn.), 283 N.W. 767.
The opinion of this department upon the constitution-
ality of any bill proposed in the Legislature is, of oourse, only
advisory in ohaorater. It does not have the force and effoot of
a judgment rendered by one of our courts. It is our convention,
hoverer, that the statutes contseaplate, and thbe Legislature desires
our honest and considered judgment.
It is therefore the opinion of this De apartment that
Senate Bill No. 64 is invalid. There is absent, in our opinion,
the necessary and substantial relation between the method and
* means adopted by the Act and the protection of the public health
or general welfare. A copy of our Opinion No. 0-830 is enclosed,
in which this question is exhaustively discussed in relation to
Rouse Bill No. 194 of the 46th Legislature. We re-afftire the
Here’s what’s next.
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-3242, text, 1941; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth260471/m1/4/: accessed October 20, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.