Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

in this case, despite the State's claims to the contrary.
Even d g for the sake of argument that Teague's petition did not comply
with Chapter 214, the second pdm of his pIeadings invoke the trial court's jurisdiction.
Though the court of appeals determined that it was unnecessary to address the hue,
Tque's petition invoked the trial oourt9s subject matter jurisdiction to detemine the
mtitutidty of the municipal ordinances and the stahhwy scheme itself.
Sovereign immunity is automatically werived when a govemmentd entity, such as a
city, takes actions which viok a citizen's constitutional rights. A citizen is entitled to
putsue injunctive and declaratory relief to coned or prevent these wrongs, even absent
legislative waiver of immunity. Furthermore, it is not necessary for a person to comply
with the exhaustion of remedies doctrine or follow statutory procedm in order to
challenge the very comtihtidity of the itself. To require otherwise is illogical.
Either of Teague's ctaims far relief, stmding alone, confir jurisdiction upun the
trial court in this matter. Therefore, this Court should affb the decision of the court of
appeals and remand this matter back to the trial court for Mer proceedings.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
oomolied with the clear mgimnents of Section 214.0012 of the
ent Code,
The iniw in* befare the Court is to debmine what steps are nw;essslty for a
citizen to properly appeal a demolition order of a city pursuant to Section 214.0012 of the
Texas L d Government Code. In their briefs, the City and State attempt to so stretch