Beckendorff v. Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation District (Tex. 1996)
- Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Lazy Nine Municipal Utility District Ex Rel. Board of Directors (Tex. App. 2006)
- Yates Ford, Inc. v. Ramirez (Tex. 1985)
- Teacher Retirement System of Texas v. Cottrell (Tex. App. 1979)
- Southwest Travis County Water District v. City of Austin (Tex. App. 2000)
- City of Lubbock v. Currey Enterprises, Inc., Dba Budget Rent-A-Car (Tex. App. 1994)
- City of Lubbock v. Currey Enterprises, Inc., Dba Budget Rent-A-Car (Tex. App. 1994)
- Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby (Tex. 1990)
- City of Houston v. Harris County Outdoor Advertising Ass'n (Tex. App. 1987)
- Schero v. Texas Department of Water Resources (Tex. App. 1982)
- Singer v. Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. (Tex. App. 1981)
- Scurry v. Texas Air Control Board (Tex. App. 1981)
- Harris County Water Control & Improvement District No. 110 v. Texas Water Rights Commission (Tex. App. 1980)
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
We approve the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case. 558 S.W.2d 75. Among the principal holdings are that the act creating the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, 1975 Tex. Gen.Laws, ch. 284 at 672, is constitutional; that it is within the grant of authority of Article XVI, § 59 of the Constitution of this State; and that the Legislature passed said Act pursuant to constitutionally mandated procedures. There is no denial of the equal protection of the law in either the geographic scope of the District or in its operation. The court below also held that the permit fees charged by the District are not occupation taxes prohibited by the Constitution. We agree.
An unqualified refusal of the application for writ of error cannot be given for the reason that the Court of Civil Appeals passed on other points which are not before us for consideration. This Court may not refuse a writ of error outright unless the opinion of the lower appellate court be one concerned exclusively with points over which this Court has jurisdiction. Article 5, §§ 3 and 6, Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St., Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, D. C. Hall Transport, Inc. v. Hard, 163 Tex. 504, 358 S.W.2d 117 (1962). Therefore, the application for writ of error is refused with the notation “No Reversible Error.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.