Devorsky v. La Vega Independent School Dist.
Decision Date | 24 June 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 10-82-058-CV,10-82-058-CV |
Citation | 635 S.W.2d 904 |
Parties | 5 Ed. Law Rep. 1074 Russell DEVORSKY, Appellant, v. LA VEGA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
W. V. Dunnam, Jr., Dunnam, Dunnam, Horner & Meyer, Waco, for appellant.
Tommy P. Herring, McClintock, Herring & Youts, Waco, for appellees.
On November 17, 1981, the Board of Trustees of La Vega Independent School District by resolution ordered an election to be held on December 15, 1981, on this proposition: "Shall (the Board) be authorized and empowered to issue the bonds of said District to the amount of $5,000,000.00 for school building purposes, to wit, the construction and equipment of school buildings in the District and the purchase of the necessary sites therefor, and shall there be pledged and levied, assessed and collected annually ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the district sufficient, without limit as to rate or amount, to pay the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same become due, said bonds to be issued in one or more series or issues, to mature serially or otherwise not more than FORTY (40) years from their date, and to bear interest at such rate or rates (not to exceed the maximum rate permitted by law at the time of issuance of the bonds) as in its discretion the Board of Trustees shall determine?" The election was held on the appointed date, and the proposition carried.
On March 25, 1982, appellant Russell Devorsky filed this suit against appellees the School District and its Board of Trustees to enjoin appellees from issuing or selling any of the bonds authorized by the bond election and from assessing, levying, or collecting any taxes for the purpose of paying any principal or interest on the bonds. After pleading the resolution and order calling the election, including the purpose of the bond issue set forth in the order, appellant alleged the following:
Appellees responded with two pleas in abatement. In the first they alleged that the essence of appellant's suit is a contest of the bond election, and that since appellant had failed to meet the jurisdictional requirement for such contest prescribed in V.A.T.S. Election Code arts. 9.03 and 9.30 by failing to give notice of the contest to any officer of District within 30 days after the return day of the election and by failing to file this suit within such 30 days, the court was without jurisdiction in the case. Appellees prayed for dismissal of the suit "for want of jurisdiction." In the second plea in abatement, appellees alleged that appellant "has not the legal capacity to sue," and that he "is not entitled to the relief sought in his Petition in the capacity in which he sues." This plea in abatement did not include a plea or prayer for the relief sought.
The record does not reflect any special exceptions to any pleading filed by the parties.
After a hearing on April 2, 1982, both pleas in abatement were sustained and separate orders were rendered on each plea dismissing appellant's suit. In the judgment on the first plea in abatement the court expressly concluded that it "does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit" and upon that ground dismissed the suit "for want of jurisdiction." The judgment on the second plea in abatement recited the court's conclusion that appellant "does not have the legal capacity to sue in the capacity in which he sues," and it ordered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network
...and the constitutional amendments at issue in Willis and Kastanis. 30. The Restoration Network relies on Devorsky v. La Vega Independent School District, 635 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.App.1982), abrogation recognized by Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities v. City of Dallas, 79 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.App.2002)......
-
Taxpayers for Sensible Riorities v. City of Dallas
...Tex. Att'y Gen. LO-92-71 (1992). A panel majority of Davis implicitly rejected the reasoning of that case, Devorsky v. La Vega Independent School District, 635 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.App.-Waco 1982, no writ). Moreover, even in the absence of Davis, we would not be bound by an attorney general's op......
-
Bell v Katy I.S.D.
...the public that it intends to sell the property under one statute and then sell the property under another, citing Devorsky v. La Vega Indep. Sch. Dist., 635 S.W.2d 904, 907 (Tex. App.-Waco 1982, no writ). However, unlike Devorsky, the present case does not involve a representation to the g......
-
Davis v. Duncanville Independent School Dist.
...case at hand. The situation before us is strikingly similar to that addressed by the Waco Court of Appeals in Devorsky v. La Vega Independent School District, 635 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.App.--Waco 1982, no writ). In his pleadings the plaintiff in Devorsky alleged that the District had ordered an e......