Sabine Offshore Service, Inc. v. City of Port Arthur
| Decision Date | 18 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8465,B-8465 |
| Citation | 595 S.W.2d 840 |
| Parties | SABINE OFFSHORE SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. The CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
H. P. Wright, Port Neches, for petitioner.
Mehaffy, Weber, Keith & Gonsoulin, James L. Weber, Beaumont, for respondent.
This is a mandamus action brought by Sabine Offshore Service, Inc. to compel the officials of the City of Port Arthur to vacate a water rationing program in the Sabine Pass area. The trial court denied the relief and the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 582 S.W.2d 477. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial.
Port Arthur, pursuant to article 1182a, annexed adjacent land which included the Sabine Pass area on May 15, 1978. Also, in accordance with article 1182c, it assumed control of the facilities of Jefferson County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1, which was supplying water to Sabine Pass.
At the time of annexation the Sabine Pass area was having some problems with inadequate water supply and pressure. In order to maintain adequate pressure for schools and homes the City adopted a Water Rationing Plan which affected only the industries in the Sabine Pass area.
Under this plan, Offshore, a company which supplied water to offshore drilling rigs and the largest user of water in the Sabine Pass area, was allowed to draw water only on alternate days. Competitors of Offshore in other areas within the city limits of Port Arthur were allowed to draw all the water they needed. This limitation seriously affected Offshore's business in the competitive market. No residences or schools either within or without the area were made subject to this plan.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that Sabine was not being discriminated against and upheld the trial court. The plan, made the basis of the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, was a plan adopted by Port Arthur on September 14. Port Arthur admitted to the Court of Civil Appeals, in its oral argument, that this plan was not implemented until October 20, which was after the trial court rendered its judgment. Under this plan Sabine could draw water daily except between the hours of 4 and 12 a. m. This plan was never presented to the trial court and is not in the record. There was, however, an affidavit disclosing the new plan which was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals and attached to Port Arthur's Motion to Dismiss the appeal as moot.
Affidavits outside the record cannot be considered by the Court of Civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...exceptions not material here, an appellate court may not consider matters outside the appellate record. Sabine Offshore Service, Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.1979); Perry v. Kroger Stores, Store No. 119, 741 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.1987, no writ). That record consists of the......
-
Brice v. Denton
...before the court as attachments to a party's brief, but not part of the appellate record. Sabine Offshore Serv., Inc., v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.1979) (per curiam). The purported letter does not appear in the clerk's Even if we did consider the purported letter, it wo......
-
Bacon v. Tex. Historical Comm'n
...amended by 37 Tex. Reg. 9494, 9495 (2012) (proposed Aug. 31, 2012). 21.See Sabine Offshore Serv., Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.1979) (noting that courts of appeals may not consider evidence outside the record); Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc., 805 S.W.2d 498, 501 (T......
-
HHH Farms, L.L.C. v. Fannin Bank
...Merch. Ctr., Inc. v. WNS, Inc. , 85 S.W.3d 389, 394 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (citing Sabine Offshore Serv., Inc. v. City of Port Arthur , 595 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. 1979) (per curiam) ). There is no indication in the record that the trial court assigned a different submission date afte......