Co., 504 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e); City of Breckenridge v. Cozart, 478 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Texas State Bd. of Barber Exam’rs v. Beaumont Barber College, 454 S.W.2d 729, 731-32 (Tex.1970); City of Coleman, 222 S.W.2d at 648-49. Likewise, the Texas Supreme Court relied on the police power to validate a statute addressing historic water use in Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation District, 925 S.W.2d 618, 633-34 (Tex.1996). Even if we were to apply the overlay of a police power analysis in the context of limiting corporate liability, the police power remains subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution upon every power of government. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 76 S.W.2d at 1011 (<HOLDING>). For the police power to trump any
recognizing that the police power is broad and comprehensive but concluding that the texas constitution forbids its exercise when the result would be the destruction of the rights guarantees privileges and restraints excepted from the powers of government by the bill of rights recognizing that an exercise of the police power necessary to safeguard the public safety and welfare can justify impairment of contractual rights and obligations holding police power is restricted by constitutional bill of rights holding that texas legislature has no police power to violate article i section 16 of the texas constitution because section 29 emphatically and unambiguously excepts this power from the powers of the government of the state of texas holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment