You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
were joined for the brid court's consideration.<br />
XI. T came i s e edto nuea t i d ide <strong>of</strong> !<br />
-0 &<br />
sch w c e md statutory mewark<br />
yre mdtutiom&<br />
Even if <strong>Teague</strong>'s petition in the trial court Wed fo invoke jurisdiction under<br />
Chapter 214, the court would still have subject matter jutisdiction in this case. Both the<br />
federal and state constitutions guarantee due process <strong>of</strong> law. U.S. CONST. mend. XTV, 5<br />
1; TEX. CONST. art. I, 8 f 9. The mere fit that a statute has been enacted d m not prevent<br />
a party b m challenging the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> the statute. While cities have a<br />
responsSity ta make sure that public nuisances andlor dangerow stmctum are hated,<br />
this msponsib'ity does not excuse the povefnmeat from respecting the cdMiOnaf<br />
ptedons afTotded its citizens. See e.g. Camara v. MWL <strong>Court</strong>, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).<br />
Olrr federal constitution does not allow a city or municipality to demolish a stnrckrre<br />
based upon its mere declaration h t said sEnrctute is a nuisance. Yates v. Mhvmks, 77<br />
U.S. 497,505 (1 870). Surely it is well settled law that <strong>Teague</strong>'s state md fedd due<br />
process rig#& were implicated when the City sought to destroy his home. <strong>Teague</strong> raised<br />
both f'ederal and state co-d claims in the district court. (CR at 8). <strong>Teague</strong>'s<br />
petition alleged that the City's actions, the underlying ordinance, and the mktying<br />
statute were uncunsthtid and in violation <strong>of</strong> his due process rights thus invoking the<br />
trial court's jurisdiction. (CR at 8); TEX. GOV'T CODE s24.008. Unforhmtely these<br />
claims have yet to be addressed, and should be remanded back to the trial court for
Change language