City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills

Texas Supreme Court

City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills

489 S.W.2d 557, 16 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 116, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 222

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1972

DocketB-3589

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 489 S.W.2d 557 (City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills, 489 S.W.2d 557, 16 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 116, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 222 (Tex. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed the judgment of the trial court holding that certain annexation proceedings of the City of Duncanville are invalid. 484 S.W.2d 111. The application for writ of error is refused on the ground that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals presents no reversible error. Although not referred to by the Court of Civil Appeals, respondent presented by counterpoints other reasons supporting the decisions of the lower courts, including the provisions of Section 6, Article 970a, 1 which provides:

Before any city may institute annexation proceedings, the governing body of such city shall provide an opportunity for all interested persons to he heard at a public hearing to be held not more than twenty (20) days nor less than ten (10) days prior to institution of such proceedings . . .

The record in this case reveals that the public hearing to consider annexation of the area in question was held on May 17, 1972. The City of Duncanville Ordinance No. 502, which attempts to annex the area in question, indicates that passage on first reading occurred on May 24, 1972. This event constitutes the institution of annexation proceedings as contemplated in the above statute. See, Red Bird Village v. State of Texas ex rel. City of Duncanville, 385 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tex.Civ.App.1965, writ refused). In Bolton v. Sparks, 362 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.1962), this Court held that full compliance with statutory requirements as to notice and hearing is necessary to the validity of an ordinance. Inasmuch as the annexation proceedings in this case were commenced less than ten days after the public hearing, the ordinance is invalid, and respondent’s counter-point should have been sustained.

We expressly reserve the question of whether a municipality may repeal an ordinance passed in ratification of a valid written agreement apportioning extraterritorial jurisdiction theretofore entered with another municipality in accordance with Section 3B of Article 970a.

1

. All statutory references are to Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed the judgment of the trial court holding that certain annexation proceedings of the City of Duncanville are invalid. 484 S.W.2d 111. The application for writ of error is refused on the ground that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals presents no reversible error. Although not referred to by the Court of Civil Appeals, respondent presented by counterpoints other reasons supporting the decisions of the lower courts, including the provisions of Section 6, Article 970a, 1 which provides:

Before any city may institute annexation proceedings, the governing body of such city shall provide an opportunity for all interested persons to he heard at a public hearing to be held not more than twenty (20) days nor less than ten (10) days prior to institution of such proceedings . . .

The record in this case reveals that the public hearing to consider annexation of the area in question was held on May 17, 1972. The City of Duncanville Ordinance No. 502, which attempts to annex the area in question, indicates that passage on first reading occurred on May 24, 1972. This event constitutes the institution of annexation proceedings as contemplated in the above statute. See, Red Bird Village v. State of Texas ex rel. City of Duncanville, 385 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tex.Civ.App.1965, writ refused). In Bolton v. Sparks, 362 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.1962), this Court held that full compliance with statutory requirements as to notice and hearing is necessary to the validity of an ordinance. Inasmuch as the annexation proceedings in this case were commenced less than ten days after the public hearing, the ordinance is invalid, and respondent’s counter-point should have been sustained.

We expressly reserve the question of whether a municipality may repeal an ordinance passed in ratification of a valid written agreement apportioning extraterritorial jurisdiction theretofore entered with another municipality in accordance with Section 3B of Article 970a.

1

. All statutory references are to Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 S.W.2d 557, 16 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 116, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-duncanville-v-city-of-woodland-hills-tex-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack