Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Hilco Electric Cooperative v. Midlothian Butane Gas Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 2003No. 01-0336Published

1Concurring in the judgmentJustice Hecht

While I agree that this case must be remanded to the trial court, I write to set out my understanding of the reasons for doing so, which I think are the same as the Court’s.

Since it was first enacted in 1937, the Texas Electric Cooperative Corporation Act has enumerated certain powers of electric cooperative corporations and then added a catchall provision, which the parties have referred to as subsection 18, that a cooperative may — to use the current statutory language that has remained essentially unchanged over the years—

perform any other acts for the cooperative or its members or for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Carr v. RogersTexas Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Midlothian Butane Gas Co. v. Hilco Electric Cooperative, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API