Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

476 S.W.2d 845

15 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 203

Hoffman v. Elliott

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1972

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1972-02-23

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““If the annexation be wholly void because not authorized by law dr color of law, a collateral attack is permissible.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Fuller Springs v. State ex rel. City of Lufkin

Relies on City of West Lake Hills v. State Ex. Rel. City of Austin · Hoffman v. Elliott

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-02-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2008

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

501972198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM

¶1 Petitioners seek a mandamus to compel Honorable Bill Elliott, County Judge of Harris County, to call an election for the incorporation of an area referred to as Clear Lake City. This area they wish to incorporate is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Houston, and no consent has been given by the governing body of Houston for the proposed incorporation as is required by Section 8 A of Article 970a, Vernon’s Anno.Tex.Civil Statutes. The mandamus was denied by the trial court and that denial affirmed by the court of civil appeals. 473 S.W.2d 675.

¶2 Petitioners contend that the area is outside of the extra-territorial jurisdiction of Houston for the reason that its Annexation Ordinance, Number 65-1555 BR, by which the City of Houston was extended farthest in this direction, is void. An attack upon an annexation ordinance must ordinarily be made by the State in an action of quo warranto. If the annexation be wholly void because not authorized by law or color of law, a collateral attack is permissible by private parties who suffer some burden peculiar to themselves. The position of the petitioners is virtually the same as that of the landowners in City of West Lake Hills v. State ex rel. City of Austin, 466 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.1971). The holding in City of West Lake Hills that the private landowners had no standing to attack the incorporation or annexation there applies to petitioners here. There is no cause to decide a question as to the validity of the Houston annexation ordinance.

¶3 The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

/476/sw2d/845 · .json · Public domain