Opinion ID: 2461515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: state and federal equal protection

Text: In his supplemental brief, O'Quinn urges that the rules in question be declared violative of the state and federal constitutional equal protection provisions pursuant to Whitworth v. Bynum, 699 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.1985). In Whitworth, our court joined a growing number of states which had struck down guest statutes on constitutional grounds. Refusing to indulge a presumption that all automobile passengers suing a driver who is within the second degree of affinity or consanguinity do so collusively, we held the Texas Automobile Guest Statute unconstitutional under Tex. Const. art. I, § 3, because the classifications drawn by this statute [were] not `rationally related to a legitimate state interest.' 699 S.W.2d at 197. It was not necessary for us to address constitutional questions raised by the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. Id. For the reasons stated in our free speech analysis above, we believe a ban on in-person solicitation by lawyers and/or their runners is substantially related to legitimate state interests. Further, our research reveals (and O'Quinn has cited) no authority for striking down the rules in question on fourteenth amendment equal protection grounds. We overrule O'Quinn's state and federal equal protection challenges.