State ex rel. Hicks v. City of Chattanooga
Decision Date | 29 July 1974 |
Citation | 513 S.W.2d 780 |
Parties | STATE of Tennessee ex rel. Robert J. HICKS et al., Appellee, v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee, et al., Appellant. STATE of Tennessee ex rel. Otis O'DELL et al., Appellee, v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee, et al., Appellant. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Eugene N. Collins, Randall L. Nelson, Chattanooga, for appellant.
Thomas H. O'Neal, Chattanooga, for appellee.
In 1971, the City of Chattanooga initiated by ordinances the annexation of several adjacent areas of the City, and upon final passage of the ordinances, actions were brought in the Courts of Hamilton County 'in the nature of quo warranto' by residents of the various areas. Four of said suits were brought in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, and in the various suits they are referred by areas as follows: Case Number N--16198, 'Tiftonia'; Case Number N--16199, 'Wauhatchie'; Case Number N--16202, 'North Mountain Creek'; and Case Number N--16209 as 'East Brainerd'. For the purpose of a hearing these four cases were consolidated, and were heard by Honorable Sam E. Boaz, as Special Judge by designation of the Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Oral proof on the questions raised was heard from March 19, 1973 through March 28, 1973. In a memorandum opinion, the Court vacated the ordinances annexing the areas known as 'Tiftonia' and 'Wauhatchie', and the City appealed. The trial judge sustained the ordinance annexing the areas of 'North Mountain Creek' and 'East Brainerd' and the plaintiffs have appealed. In this opinion only the action of the trial judge in vacating the ordinances applying to 'Tiftonia' and 'Wauhatchie' is involved, and the City has filed in each case identical assignments of error as follows:
The trial judge in his memorandum summarized the testimony as follows:
Here we should observe in this opinion that we will consider only the action of the trial judge holding these ordinances invalid because '(T)he welfare of the residents and property owners of Tiftonia and Wauhatchie, as well as the City of Chattanooga, Would not, in the Court's opinion, be adversely affected if the annexation of the two areas was not consumated'. (Emphasis added.)
Immediately preceding the summary of the evidence, the trial judge made the following observation:
'Historically, municipalities have found it necessary to expand their city boundaries, and that is why the Legislature has adopted statutes setting out the procedure to be followed.
(Emphasis added.)
In all of these annexation cases now before this Court, including a companion case appealed from the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, the procedure followed by the City prior to passage of the final ordinances was the same. In each case the plans of services were based upon a comprehensive study of all areas surrounding and adjacent to the City of Chattanooga. In the companion case from the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, styled State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Lucius P. Hodson, et al., we have today released an opinion wherein the procedure followed by the City prior to the final passage of the ordinances was discussed and held to be in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Little v. City of Chattanooga
...of Services"). The validity of the annexations was challenged and upheld in two quo warranto actions. See State ex rel. Hicks v. City of Chattanooga , 513 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. 1974) ; State ex rel. Hudson v. City of Chattanooga , 512 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. 1974), superseded by statute on other grou......
-
City of Kingsport v. State ex rel. Crown Enterprises, Inc.
...standard was applied in State ex rel. Hudson v. City of Chattanooga, 512 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn.1974), and again in State ex rel. Hicks v. City of Chattanooga, 513 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn.1974). The decision in each of these cases was dated July 29, 1974. Chapter 753, Public Acts of 1974 became effectiv......
-
Henley v. City of Johnson City
...washing all services mentioned in context of welfare, health, and safety regarding annexation issue); State ex rel. Hicks v. City of Chattanooga, 513 S.W.2d 780, 781-82 (Tenn. 1974) (fire and police protection, sanitary sewers, garbage collection, schools and recreational facilities referen......
-
State ex rel. Moretz v. City of Johnson City
...judge, applying the "fairly debatable" rule, adjudged the ordinance to be valid. He predicated his holding on State ex rel. Hicks v. City of Chattanooga, 513 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn.1974); State ex rel. Wood v. City of Memphis, supra; State ex rel. Balsinger v. Town of Madisonville, supra; and Mor......