TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Woodlief v. State

John C. Woodlief v. State

Woodlief v. State, 2 S.W. 812 (Tex. App. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 2, 1886
Docket
No. 4019
Judges
Wilson
Citations
2 S.W. 81221 Tex. Ct. App. 4121886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 162
Cited by 4
Syllabus
“Local Option” Law—Repeal— Case Approved.—It is within the power of the qualified voters of a justice’s precinct, town, or city, to repeal the “local option” law within the limits of such justice’s precinct, town, or city, in the manner provided by law, notwithstanding said law has been adopted and is in force throughout the county. Note the opinion for an approval by the majority of the court, of Whisenhunt’s case, 18 Texas Court of Appeals, 491, upon the same question.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below before the Hon. O. E. Dunlap. The conviction in this case was for a violation of the “ local option ” law, and the penalty imposed was a fine of twenty-five dollars.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wilson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wilson, Judge.

Since the conviction in this case was obtained, the town of Waxahachie, in which the alleged offense was committed, has, by a legal election, repealed the local option law within the limits of said town. This court has decided that it is within the power of the qualified voters of a justice’s precinct, town or city, to repeal the local option law within the limits of such precinct, town or city, in the manner provided by law, notwithstanding said law has been adopted and is in force *413 throughout the county. (Whisenhunt v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 491.)

Opinion delivered June 2, 1886.

A majority of the court adheres to this ruling, and hold that the local option law is no longer in force within the corporate limits of the town of Waxahachie, and there is, therefore, no law which would warrant an enforcement of the judgment of conviction, even if it were otherwise a valid conviction. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1911: 11935: 11959: 11960: 119112026peak 1911 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Myers v. Martinez320 S.W.2d 862 (Tex. App. 1959)
  2. State v. Hearn115 P. 1066 (Or. 1911)
  3. Warren v. Moore337 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App. 1960)
  4. Kmeicik v. Coker81 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. App. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Warren v. Moore337 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App. 1960)
  2. Myers v. Martinez320 S.W.2d 862 (Tex. App. 1959)
  3. Kmeicik v. Coker81 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. App. 1935)
  4. State v. Hearn115 P. 1066 (Or. 1911)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list