McEachern v. Town of Highland Park
| Decision Date | 30 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 5945.,5945. |
| Citation | 73 S.W.2d 487 |
| Parties | McEACHERN v. TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Goggans & Ritchie, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
McBride, O'Donnell & Hamilton and Henry P. Edwards, all of Dallas, for defendants in error.
This is a zoning case, here by writ of error. We refer to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for a statement of the case. 34 S.W. (2d) 676.
The principal question involved is the validity of the zoning ordinance of the city of Highland Park, an incorporated town adjacent to the city of Dallas. The ordinance is a comprehensive one, similar in purpose to the zoning ordinance held valid by us in the case of Lombardo v. City of Dallas, 73 S.W. (2d) 475, this day decided, but not yet reported [in State Reports].
It is unnecessary to discuss the validity of the ordinance before us, since it is in its general effect plainly valid under the Lombardo Case, just mentioned, and the authorities therein cited. The lot upon which the plaintiff in error desires to construct a gasoline filling station is a residence lot in a dwelling or residential district as zoned by the city. There is nothing peculiar to or incident to the property which would make the zoning ordinance inapplicable to it. A residence is on the property now, and so far as this record shows it is suitable for that purpose. Under the Lombardo opinion and the authorities cited, it is not a denial of due process or equal protection of the law to refuse the plaintiff in error the permit, or deny him the right to erect a filling station thereon in violation of the zoning ordinance. There is no merit in plaintiff in error's insistence that because he applied for a permit and filed a suit upon its refusal before the zoning ordinance was enacted, the ordinance cannot be invoked against him. The Court of Civil Appeals made a correct disposition of that question.
In addition to the authorities cited in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, see also City of Tucson v. Arizona Mortuary, 34 Ariz. 495, 272 P. 923; Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 195 Cal. 477, 234 P. 381, 38 A. L. R. 1479; Ware v. City of Wichita, 113 Kan. 153, 214 P. 99.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls
...124 N.J.L. 548, 550, 12 A.2d 713 (1940); Baxley v. City of Frederick, 133 Okl. 84, 271 P. 257 (1928); McEachern v. Town of Highland Park, 124 Tex 36, 73 S.W.2d 487 (1934); Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation v. City of Detroit, 368 Mich. 276, 118 N.W.2d 258 (1962); Annot: 169 A.L.R. 584......
-
City of San Antonio v. Pigeonhole Parking of Texas
...passage of the ordinance nor for the reason that it had failed to file suit before the passage of the ordinance. McEachern v. Town of Highland Park, 124 Tex. 36, 73 S.W.2d 487, puts this question to rest in '* * * There is no merit in plaintiff in error's insistence that because he applied ......
-
Caruthers v. Board of Adjustment of City of Bunker Hill Village, 12969
...subject to the police power'. Contemporaneously with the decision of the Lombardo case, the Supreme Court decided McEachern v. Town of Highland Park, 124 Tex. 36, 73 S.W.2d 487. There the Supreme Court approved the disposition made by the El Paso Court, Tex.Civ.App., 34 S.W.2d 676, of plain......
-
Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist.
...that affect economic rights. Lombardo v. City of Dallas, 124 Tex. 1, 73 S.W.2d 475, 482-85 (1934); McEachern v. Town of Highland Park, 124 Tex. 36, 73 S.W.2d 487, 487 (1934); see also Lens Express, Inc. v. Ewald, 907 S.W.2d 64, 68-69 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995, no writ); Town of Sunnyvale v. Ma......