Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Decision Date | 27 April 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 21561.,21561. |
Citation | 343 F.2d 162 |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Parties | Wesley HAMMONDS et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, Appellee. |
Sidney P. Chandler, Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellants.
I. M. Singer, Robert E. Young, Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Garza, dismissing appellants' suit.
Appellants, alleging that two annexation ordinances are unconstitutional and void as to them, sought an injunction prohibiting the city from asserting any control over the alleged annexed territory, including, but not limited to, its attempt to collect city taxes.
Urging that the selection of their property for annexation and the exclusion of certain other similar property in the area were arbitrary and not based upon any reasonable classification, appellants insist that the complained of action denies them the equal protection of the laws in that the exercise of municipal authority by the city over the area is an abridgment of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the area, deprives them of their liberty and property without due process of law, and denies them equal protection of the law in that property of inhabitants in an excluded territory adjacent to the city is exempted from city municipal authority, regulations, and taxes. It is also alleged that the selection of the property to be annexed was designed to favor certain persons by excluding their property so they would not have to pay city taxes on it.
Appellee contends that the annexations were properly proposed by the city council and approved by the voters in elections held in accordance with state law, including the city charter. Some of the complainants have previously attacked the annexations in state court suits, and they were there held valid. Winship et al. v. City of Corpus Christi, 373 S.W.2d 844 ( )(Appeal pending in U. S. Supreme Court); Pennington et al. v. City of Corpus Christi, 363 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.Civ.App.1962 — error ref'd n. r. e.) (Appeal dismissed by U. S. Supreme Court, 375 U.S. 439, 84 S.Ct. 507, 11 L.Ed.2d 471). The only limitation under Texas law on the power of a home rule city like appellee to annex additional territory is that the territory shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kimmey v. HA Berkheimer, Inc.
... ... City of Houston v. Standard-Triumph Motor Company, 347 F.2d 194, ... 1940); Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas, 226 F.Supp. 456 (S.D ... ...
-
Murphy v. Kansas City, Missouri
... ... See: Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, 226 F.Supp. 456 (S.D.Tex.1964), affirmed 343 ... ...
-
Detroit Edison Co. v. East China Township School Dist. No. 3
...held that Hunter forecloses a challenge to an annexation procedure based on the equal protection provision. Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas, 343 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. den., 86 S.Ct. 85 (Oct. 11, 1965), affirming 226 F.Supp. 456 (S.D. Tex.1964); International Harvester Co......
-
Mahone v. Addicks Utility Dist. of Harris County
... ... States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ... Before WISDOM, GEE and KING * , ... at 671 (interpreting Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151 ... at 672 (quoting Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, 343 F.2d 162, 163 (5th Cir.), ... ...