Tucker v. City of Robertsdale, 80-354
| Decision Date | 20 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-354,80-354 |
| Citation | 406 So.2d 886 |
| Parties | C. David TUCKER, et al., v. CITY OF ROBERTSDALE, a municipal corporation, et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles C. Partin of Stone, Partin, Granade & Crosby, Bay Minette, for appellants.
Edward S. Sledge, III and M. Mallory Mantiply of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston, Mobile, for appellees.
This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, City of Robertsdale and certain named city officials. We affirm.
The two basic legal questions presented concern 1) the procedure which a municipality must use in its decision making, and 2) the theories upon which a municipality may be held liable when it acts under legislative authorization.
The facts are uncomplicated. Representatives of a real estate development company appeared before the Robertsdale planning commission with plans for the construction of an apartment complex on a tract of land outside the city limits, to be financed by the Farmers Home Administration. This delegation requested that the City extend utility services to the site. The mayor, a member of the planning commission, informed the representatives that the City would furnish utilities.
At the next regular meeting of the planning commission, a number of residents near the apartment complex expressed opposition to the proposed complex. Nevertheless, the commission voted to confirm in writing the tentative approval granted earlier, with certain conditions not relevant here, and this written confirmation was sent to the developers. About four months later, the mayor informed the developers by letter that the proposed apartments were within the City's zoning ordinances for the area, and had been approved by the planning commission and the city council. He added that the City's utilities would be furnished as needed.
The proposed construction was approved by the South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, and later, both the City and County issued building permits. Plans and specifications for the complex's utilities were approved by the City's engineers.
The plaintiffs, as taxpayers of Defendant City, instituted this action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to prevent the City of Robertsdale from extending its water and sewer systems outside its corporate limits to the apartment complex which it characterized as a "low income" housing project. The complaint contained two counts: Count One alleges that the City agreed to furnish water and sewer services to the development site outside the city's corporate limits without having adopted a resolution making a determination that such extension was necessary or expedient. Count Two alleges that Plaintiff Sam Freeman and wife, as taxpayers of Baldwin County and property owners outside the City and near the development in question, would suffer property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
KTK Mining of Va., LLC v. City of Selma
...of laws by ordinance or resolution in the absence of a statutory requirement for a specific mode of enactment. Tucker v. City of Robertsdale, 406 So.2d 886 (Ala.1981). See, also, McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 5 (3rd ed., 1981), § 15.06.”). Accord Scott v. Coachman, 73 So.3d 607, 6......
-
Bailey v. City of Leeds
...of laws by ordinance or resolution in the absence of a statutory requirement for a specific mode of enactment. Tucker v. City of Robertsdale, 406 So. 2d 886 (Ala. 1981). See, also, McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 5 (3rd ed., 1981), § 15.06."The statute whereby the city council and m......
-
United Council of Loxley, Inc. v. City of Loxley
...we shall address only that count. The city acted within its authority in contracting to provide the water service. Tucker v. City of Robertsdale, 406 So.2d 886 (Ala.1981). The city may be held liable if it breaches its contract. Hendrix, Mohr & Yardley, Inc. v. City of Daphne, 359 So.2d 792......
-
Scott v. Coachman
...of laws by ordinance or resolution in the absence of a statutory requirement for a specific mode of enactment.” Tucker v. City of Robertsdale, 406 So.2d 886 (Ala.1981). See, also, McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 5 (3rd ed., 1981) 15.06.’ “(Emphasis added.) “Clearly, if the council, ......