.

JIM MATTOX Attorney General
Supreme Court Building P. 0. BOX 12548 Austin, TX. 78711. 2548 51214752501 Telex 910/874-1387 Teleconler 512/475G?SS
714 Jackson, Suite 7W Dallas, TX. 75202-4508 2141742-9944
4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 9151533-3484
1001 Texas. Suite 700 Houston, TX. 77002-3111 713l2255896
808 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock. TX. 79401-3479 9081747-5238
4909 N. Tenth, Suite S ,&Allen, TX. 78501~1895 512h382.4547
200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 5121225.4191

A” Equal OPPOrtUnitYi Affirmative Actlon EmPlOW 

# The Attorney General of Texas Declmber 2. 1985

HonorableMike Dr:Lscoll Harris CountyAttorney 1001Preston, Suixe 634 Houston, Texas "7002 OpinionNo. .JM-387 Re: Constitutionalityof House Bill No. 2370, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427. which applies to counties and areas of counties outside theboundaries of cities of 1.5 million or more residents Dear Mr. Driscoll: You have inquiredwhether chapter 568 of the Sixty-ninthLegislature, Acts 1985, 6'9thLeg., ch. 568, at 4427, which enacted article 974a-3, V.T.C.S., violates article III. section 35 of the Texas Constitution. Thlttsectionprovides es follows:

No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which 'my embrace the various subjects and accountlr,for and on account of which moneys are appropriated)shall containmore than ona subject, which shallbe expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void oa:Lyas to so much thereof, as shall not be so expmssed. Tex. Const. art. 1'11,$35. The InterpretiveComencary fo!lowlng the above quotedprovxioa states, in part, as follows:

The 'pnpose of the title-subjectprovision is threefold: First, it is designed to prevent log-rol!.inglegislation, i.e., to prevent the writing of several subjectshaving no connection with each other in one bill for the purpose of combining various interests in support of the whole. Second, it prevents surprise or fraudupon

-- legislators by means of provisions in bills of which thmetitles give no intimation, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintent:icmallyadopted. w, it permits the people ‘to be fairly apprised of the subjects of legislationunder consideration, so that they may

p. 1771HonorableMike Driscoll - Page 2 (JM-387)

have an opportunity of being heard, if they so desire. Tax. Coast. art. III, $35, interp. commentary (Vernon 1984). While it is well-settled that "the quoted provision . . , is mandatory," Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of Bishop Independent SchoolDistrict, 261 S.W. 1J9. 490 (Tex.Civ. App. - SanAntonio 1924, writ ref'd),

[i]t is also wall settled that the caption of an act shouldbe lS,erally construed so aa to uphold itsvalidity if att: all possible. Gulf Ins. Co. v. Jamas (supsa); :$e v. State, 163 Tax. 89, 352 S.W.2d 724 (19621. It has also been held that, 'none of ths pr&isions of a statute should b; regarded as uncmstitutional where they relate, directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have mutual connecticn, and are cot foreign to the subject.

expressed in the title.' Stone V. Brown, 54 Tex. 330. C. Hayman Construction CcEpany v. American Indemnity Conpan& 471 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tax. 19711. The title of the questioned enactment reads as follows: relatingto the tubmissionand approval of certain developmentplattlin cities of 1,500,OOOresidents or more; providirtS; a penalty. V.T.C.S. art. 974a-3,Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427 (titleto H.B. No. 2370). You challnlge this title's adequacy because it "does not refer to cities' extraterritorial jurisdiction. . . .II The 

### text of the statute does refer XC cities' extraterritorialjurisdiction. 00 thebasis of the at.thorities cited above,we conclude that the subject of chapter 568 is adequatelyexpressedvithin its title. The title does not, as you seem to suggest, restrict its applicability to the limits of a city's nornal governance,but rathermerely describes the subject as being the :iilingof plats 2 certain cities. Hence, the title's sufficiency is not defeated by the maxim that mention of one thing excludes anotherwhich caused the invalidationof the act at issue in Sutherland, wb Since extraterritorial jurisdiction is inextricablyrelated to plztting of subdivisionsin cities, see, e.g., V.T.C.S. arts. 970a, 974a, the title of chapter 568 is coveredby the following standardas statc:d in the Hayman case: Our courtshave upheld the validity of statutes which state in general terms a subjectwithin the body of the act which is germane to the general

p. 1772HonorableMike Driscoll - :?sge3 (JM-387)

subject stated in the title of the act. Doeppenschmidt V. I. & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tsx. 532, 101 S.W. 1080 (190iT; Consolidated Underwriters v. Kirby Lumber Co::,Tex. Corn.App., 267 S.W. 703 (opinion adopted 1943); Central Education Agency V. Ind. SchoolDist. of El Paso, 152 Tsx. 56, 254 S.W.2d 357 (1953.r. C. Hayman Construction CtmlpanyV. American Indemnity Company, 471 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex. 1971:1.. SUMMARY The title of chapter 568,Acts 1985, 69th Leg.; ch. 568, is not violative of section 35 of article III of the Texas Constitution.
Very trulyyour , 

# L-l

4 ikJx& JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACK HIGHTOWER First AssistantAttorney General MARY KELLER ExecutiveAssistantAttonwy General ROBERT GRAY SpecialAssistantAttorneyGeneral RICK GILPIN Chairman,Opinion Comittw Preparedby Colin J. Carl AssistantAttorneyGeneral APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Chairman Colin Carl Susan Garrison Tony Guillory Jim Moellinger JenniferRiggs Nancy Sutton SarahWoelk

p. 1773