Tuttle v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority v. City of San Antonio (Tex. 1947)
- City of San Antonio v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Tex. App. 1945)
- San Antonio Water System v. Beatriz Smith (Tex. App. 2014)
- Gallagher Headquarters Ranch Development, Ltd. v. City of San Antonio (Tex. App. 2008)
- City of Galveston v. Galveston Municipal Police Ass'n (Tex. App. 2001)
- Walker v. Horine (Tex. App. 1985)
- San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Board of Trustees of San Antonio Electric & Gas System (Tex. App. 1947)
- Gallagher Headquarters Ranch Development, Ltd., Christopher Hill and Julie Hooper v. City of San Antonio, Texas (Tex. App. 2008)
- Gallagher Headquarters Ranch Development, Ltd., Christopher Hill and Julie Hooper v. City of San Antonio, Texas (Tex. App. 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At a former day in this term of court we “Refused For Want of Merit” application for writ of error No. 27098, filed by the above-named petitioners against the above-named respondents. Such application for writ of error is now before us on motion for rehearing filed by the petitioners in the application. Such motion is No. 16180.
We “Refused For Want of Merit” the application for writ , of error in this case because we were of the opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that the the plaintiffs who brought this suit in the district court were, and are, without lawful authority to bring or maintain the same. We are still of that opinion. Since we hold that the parties who brought this suit were, and are, without authority to bring or maintain it, we do hot consider it proper for us to express an opinion on its merits. We therefore do not do so.
It is ordered that the motion for rehearing above mentioned be, and the same is hereby, overruled.
Opinion delivered October 27, .1943.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.