Hoffman v. Elliott

476 S.W.2d 845, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 203, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 269
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 23, 1972
DocketB-3136
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 476 S.W.2d 845 (Hoffman v. Elliott) 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
Hoffman v. Elliott, 476 S.W.2d 845, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 203, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 269 (Tex. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioners seek a mandamus to compel Honorable Bill Elliott, County Judge of Harris County, to call an election for the incorporation of an area referred to as Clear Lake City. This area they wish to incorporate is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Houston, and no consent has been given by the governing body of Houston for the proposed incorporation as is required by Section 8 A of Article 970a, Vernon’s Anno.Tex.Civil Statutes. The mandamus was denied by the trial court and that denial affirmed by the court of civil appeals. 473 S.W.2d 675.

Petitioners contend that the area is outside of the extra-territorial jurisdiction of Houston for the reason that its Annexation Ordinance, Number 65-1555 BR, by which the City of Houston was extended farthest in this direction, is void. An attack upon an annexation ordinance must ordinarily be made by the State in an action of quo warranto. If the annexation be wholly void because not authorized by law or color of law, a collateral attack is permissible by private parties who suffer some burden peculiar to themselves. The position of the petitioners is virtually the same as that of the landowners in City of West Lake Hills v. State ex rel. City of Austin, 466 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.1971). The holding in City of West Lake Hills that the private landowners had no standing to attack the incorporation or annexation there applies to petitioners here. There is no cause to decide a question as to the validity of the Houston annexation ordinance.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

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

Related

Town of Fairview v. City of McKinney
271 S.W.3d 461 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
City of Port Isabel v. Pinnell
207 S.W.3d 394 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Gonzales v. Concerned Citizens of Webberville
173 S.W.3d 112 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Sunchase Capital Group, Inc. v. City of Crandall
69 S.W.3d 594 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Harris v. The City of Houston
151 F.3d 186 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Nos. 97-20138, 98-20001
151 F.3d 186 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Alexander Oil Company v. City of Seguin
825 S.W.2d 434 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
City of Bridge City v. State Ex Rel. City of Port Arthur
792 S.W.2d 217 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin
823 S.W.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Larkins v. City of Denison
683 S.W.2d 754 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
City of Nassau Bay v. City of Webster
600 S.W.2d 905 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Knapp v. City of El Paso
586 S.W.2d 216 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Turknett v. Bandy
548 S.W.2d 809 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Universal City v. City of Selma
514 S.W.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Fuller Springs v. State ex rel. City of Lufkin
503 S.W.2d 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
476 S.W.2d 845, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 203, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-elliott-tex-1972.