City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills
| Decision Date | 20 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5155,5155 |
| Citation | 484 S.W.2d 111 |
| Parties | The CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, Texas, Appelllant, v. The CITY OF WOODLAND HILLS, Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Saner, Jack, Sallinger & Nichols, Robert L. Dillard, III, Dallas, for appellant.
Jenkins & Johnson, Warwick H. Jenkins and Ronnie B. Johnson, Waxahachie, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant City of Duncanville from summary judgment declaring its Ordinance 502, annexing certain territory, void.
Plaintiff City of Woodland Hills filed this suit against defendant City of Duncanville, seeking to have defendant's Ordinance 502, annexing certain tracts of land, declared void. Plaintiff alleged such tracts were within its extraterritorial jurisdiction; that it had repealed its Ordinance 41 by which it had agreed to such annexation by defendant.
Defendant filed plea in abatement asserting challenge to the validity of its annexation proceedings could only be raised by quo warranto proceedings in the name of the State of Texas; and by answer plead that plaintiff had by Ordinance waived its extraterritorial jurisdiction in favor of defendant.
Plaintiff and defendant both moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and declared defendant's Ordinance 502 annexing property void, and enjoined defendant from annexing land in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of plaintiff.
Defendant appeals on 4 points contending the trial court erred:
1) In overruling defendant's plea in abatement because the suit filed by plaintiff was not a quo warranto proceeding.
2) In holding Ordinance 502 void and enjoining defendant from annexing the area in question.
3) In sustaining plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
4) In overruling defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Defendant's contention 1 asserts the trial court erred in overruling its plea in abatement, because the suit was a collateral attack on its Ordinance 502, and was not quo warranto proceeding.
An incorporated city or other aggrieved party can properly challenge a void annexation ordinance of a city without joinder of the State in a quo warranto proceeding. City of Galena Park v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., Er.Ref., 133 S.W.2d 162; City of Pasadena v. Houston Endowment Inc., Tex.Civ.App., NRE, 438 S.W.2d 152; Deacon v. City of Euless, Tex., 405 S.W.2d 59.
The trial court properly overruled defendant's plea in abatement.
Defendant's points 2, 3, and 4 assert the trial court erred in holding defendant's Ordinance 502 void, in rendering summary judgment for plaintiff, and in not rendering summary judgment for defendant.
It is undisputed that the territory annexed by defendant's Ordinance 502 is within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Roanoke v. Town of Westlake
...S.W.2d 905, 908 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 608 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.1980); City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills, 484 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 489 S.W.2d 557 Westlake, does not contend that Roanoke ever cons......
-
City of Murphy v. City of Parker
...CODE § 43.051. As a general rule, a city may not annex land in another city's ETJ without that city's consent. City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills, 484 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco), writ ref'd per curiam, 489 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.1972), overruled in part on other grounds, Alexa......
-
City of Nassau Bay v. City of Webster
...the trial court did have jurisdiction to hear the suit. Deacon v. City of Euless, 405 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.1966); City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills, 484 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.Civ.App.1972, writ ref. n. r. e. at Tex., 489 S.W.2d 557); City of Houston v. Harris County Eastex Oaks Water and Se......
-
Village of Creedmoor v. Frost Nat. Bank
...879, 887 (Tex.App.1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied., 482 U.S. 928, 107 S.Ct. 3212, 96 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987); City of Duncanville v. City of Woodland Hills, 484 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Tex.Civ.App.1972, writ ref'd n.r.e., 489 S.W.2d 557 The specific issue of whether an incorporating municipality......