Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The opinion of the court of wppeals does not abrogate the shtutmy appeal process for a municipality's demotition order through the UDJ% rather the court specikdy fails to d an evaluation of this sepmte issue .............................................................. 17 Substantial evidence standard is not m issue as them has never been an evdu&on of evidence in this matter ....................................................... ,...,,.~..........,18 The City waived any alleged reqhent for a request for writ of &&. ............................................................. .I9 11. Teagm is entitled to pursue a suit for iojlmctive and deckatmy relief outside of the statutory scheme on the basis that the cily ordinance and statutory fmmewurk are mcunstitutiaaal......................... ..*.20 Govemmd immunity is autoddly waived in suits to enjoin violations of state or &ded constitutional rights.. ............................................................. .2 1 Teague's claims for oo~~onal and dechtory relief are properly brought under the UIDJA .......................... 22 Tmgue's constitutional d a b are not subject to any of the mbints imposed by Chapter 214 of the Texas Local Government Code ...................... . .......................... 23 Teague's has rsiised substantid complaints tholt the city ordinance and underlying statutory scheme are un-tutlonal. ...% . ................................................................... III. Ho1n80mer's due process rights vs. public concerns ....................................................................................................... 29
CASES INDEX OF AUTHORITIES AircraJ& Diesel Egu@. Corp. v. Hirsch, 33 1 U.S. 752 (1947).. .................................... ..26 Board of Adjustment of Ci@ of Sarr Antonio v. Wdlie, 5 1 1 S.W.2d 59 1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1974, writ rerd nr. e. )... ............................ . ........................... ..27 Camatu v. Ah, Court, 387 US. 523 (1967) ............................................................... 20,29 Central Puwer h Ligk Co. v. Sharp, 960 S.W.2d 617 (Tex 1997) .................................. 25 Cify ofh Purtev. B+Zd, 898 S.W= 288,291 (Tex. 1995) .................................... ,..,21 Cow@ of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.38 549, 555 vex. 2002) ................................... u...15 Colainey v. Uniwrsi@ of TEWS &s., 806 S.W2d 277,284 (Tex. App. -Fort Worth 1991, wit denied) ............................................................................... 21 Davis v. Zoning Board of Adjusment ofCi@ of La Porte, 865 S.W.2d 941 (Ta 1993) ,. ....12-14 ................................ ....................................... Goiden Eagle Archery, Inc, v. Jmhon, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2000) ............................... 27 In re Teague, 2006 WL 3021 23 vex. App.-Fort W d Feb. 6,2006, orig. proceeding) .............................................................................. *..4 JB. Advertking Im. v. Sigrr Bd. QfAppeaIs of City of Carrollton, 883 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1994, writdmied) ....................................... 7,27
Page 2 and 3: NO. 06-0389 CITY OF JACKSBORO, TEXA
Page 4 and 5: Petitioner: CITY OF JACKSBORO Petit
Page 8 and 9: Keyishim v . Board of Regents. 385
Page 10 and 11: Nature of the Case: Trial Court: Tr
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?