Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

SUMMARY OF T'iiE ARGUMENT
The City fails to recognize a funthmed aspect of Teague's pl&gs which the
court of appeals acknowledged. Teague's pleadings request two distinctly different forms
of relief. First, as the court of appeals indicated his pleadqs appeal the decision of lhe
City to demolish his home pursuant to Chapter 214. Second, Teague's pleadings
challenge the wnstitutionali@ of the underlying ordinance and statute. The court of
appeals understood the dual nature of Teague's pleadings. Therefore, when it ruled that
Tague's fmt requested relief invoked the trial court's jurisdiction, it was not necessary
to address Teague's seam* constitutionaf claims. Either of Teague's requested forms
of relief, standing on their own, are sacient to invoke the triaI court's subject matter
jurisdiction.
Teague's h t claim was w challenge or appeal of the City's mder under the
statutory scheme. Both the CiV and the State misconstrue the statutmy jurisdictional
requirements contained in Chapter 214 of the Tern Local Government Code for
challenging municipal demolition orders. Specifidy, despite clear discretiomwy
language to the contrary, they claim that the statute has a mandatory requirement that a
litigant me a "f &tion for Writ of Momti." In actuality, a clear d g of the statute
indicates that in order to invoke the trial murt's jurisdiction, the litigant solely need to (1)
file a verified petition, (2) stating that the decision is illegal as well as the grounds of the
illegality, (3) within thirty days of their receipt of the municipality's order. The court of