Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nature of the Case: Trial Court: TriuZ Court Dispositiop~: Parties in Cowt ofAppeals: Court of Appals: STATEMENT OF TEU?, CASE This case involves the requisites necessary for a citizen to appeal a municipal demolition order under Chapter 2 14 of the Texas Local Government Code. Additionally, this case involves a citizen's ability, independent of the staturn framework, to challenge the constitutionality of the underlying city ordinance or statute. FoIlowhg the issuance of a demolition order for his home by the City, Teague filed a vefied petition appealing the City's order under Chapter 214 and also challenging the comtitutidty of the city ordinance and the statutory framework outside the statutory process. The Honorable John H. Fostel, 27 1"' Judicial District Court, Jack County, Texas. On January 26,2006, the trial court granted the Cify's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Teague's lawsuit for 1 a& of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Perry Teague was Appellant. Defendant City of Jacksboro was Appelfee. Second Court of Appeds; Justices Livingston, Dauphinof and Holman. Disposition by Cowt of Appeals: In a published opinion authored by Justice Livingston the court of appeals held that Respondent's vded petition properly complied with Chapter 2 14 of the Texas Local Government Code and therefore invoked the tsial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for Mer proceedings.
ISSUES PRESENTED Does Section 2 14.00 12(b) of the Texas Local Government Code w-uire, as a jurisdictional prerequisite, that a party request a writ of certiorari within thirty clays of their receipt of an order of a dcipality? No. Section 214.0012@) is clearly didonary on its face, and not jurisdictional. The stam merely requires that a verified petition be fled within thirty days. Writs of certiorari are wed to ensure a complete record for widentimy purposes and have nothing to do with a trial corn's jurisdiction. Whether a party chdlenging a statute, ordinmce or municipal order on constitutimd grounds who does not follow that same statutory kework properly invokes the court's subject matter jurisdiction? Yes. The mising of comthdional issues invokes the Wct court's jurisdiction. TEX. CONST. art. V, 8 8; TEX. GOV'T CODE 5 24.008; Tex CW. PMC. & RIM. CODE 5 37.004(a). Furthemore, a party need not follow the very statute it is clouming is undtuEional in order to invoke jwidictiofl.
Page 2 and 3: NO. 06-0389 CITY OF JACKSBORO, TEXA
Page 4 and 5: Petitioner: CITY OF JACKSBORO Petit
Page 6 and 7: The opinion of the court of wppeals
Page 8 and 9: Keyishim v . Board of Regents. 385
Page 12 and 13: STA'IXmNT OF THE FACTS At the outse
Page 14 and 15: Restraining &&r on January 12,.2UU6
Page 16 and 17: SUMMARY OF T'iiE ARGUMENT The City
Page 18 and 19: in this case, despite the State's c
Page 20 and 21: other requirements exist. The court
Page 22 and 23: petition to challenge the City's or
Page 24 and 25: is merely the method by which the c
Page 26 and 27: included within the opinion is not
Page 28 and 29: accordance with the contentions of
Page 30 and 31: assertions =garding the statutmy pr
Page 32 and 33: k in . suits to rnlOlg4 violations
Page 34 and 35: Tap's challenges to the d tutiodty
Page 36 and 37: statutory framework and/or ordinanc
Page 38 and 39: he sought to appeal the City's demo
Page 40 and 41: that the ordinance ad statute faiI
Page 42: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cer
Page 46: : d dtclsion of 1 Sunday, the Ind L
Page 50: h y utw, litnhdtkr: or mta~gagce ~r

Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?