Hoffman v. Elliott
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision. The 20 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Town of Fairview v. City of McKinney (Tex. App. 2008)
- City of Port Isabel v. Pinnell (Tex. App. 2006)
- City of Port Isabel, Texas v. Hp Pinnell, Trustee of Pinnell Trust and Town of South Padre Island (Tex. App. 2006)
- Alexander Oil Company v. City of Seguin (Tex. 1992)
- City of Port Isabel v. Pinnell (Tex. App. 2005)
- City of Port Isabel, Texas v. Hp Pinnell, Trustee of Pinnell Trust and Town of South Padre Island (Tex. App. 2005)
- Sunchase Capital Group, Inc. v. City of Crandall (Tex. App. 2001)
- Sunchase Captial Group, Inc., and Jodee Null v. the City of Crandall, Texas (Tex. App. 2001)
- Harris v. The City of Houston (5th Cir. 1998)
- City of Bridge City v. State Ex Rel. City of Port Arthur (Tex. App. 1990)
- Universal City v. City of Selma (Tex. App. 1974)
- Gonzales v. Concerned Citizens of Webberville (Tex. App. 2005)
- Harris,et al v. The City of Houston (5th Cir. 1999)
- Nos. 97-20138, 98-20001 (5th Cir. 1998)
- Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin (Tex. App. 1989)
- Larkins v. City of Denison (Tex. App. 1984)
- City of Nassau Bay v. City of Webster (Tex. App. 1980)
- Knapp v. City of El Paso (Tex. App. 1979)
- Turknett v. Bandy (Tex. App. 1977)
- Fuller Springs v. State ex rel. City of Lufkin (Tex. App. 1973)
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
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.
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.
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.