Part III: Public Law - Local Government
![handle is hein.journals/smulr26 and id is 229 raw text is: PART III: PUBLIC LAW
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
by
H. Louis Nichols*
I. OPEN MEETING LAW
N 1967 the Texas Legislature adopted the Open Meeting Law, which was
designed to assure the public an opportunity to be informed of the trans-
action of public business.! This act, with certain exceptions, requires that every
regular, special, or called meeting or session of every governmental body shall
be open to the public. The legal effect of a meeting held in violation of this
statute reached the appellate courts during this survey period.
In Toyah Independent School District v. Pecos-Barstow Independent School
District' suit was brought to enjoin the enforcement of an order adopted by the
Board of Trustees of Reeves County, annexing Toyah Independent School
District. It was contended that the annexation order was subject to judicial
invalidation because it was adopted at a closed meeting of the Reeves board
in violation of the Open Meeting Law. The court stated that the Reeves School
Board was a political subdivision of the State of Texas, and that the members
could perform no valid act except as a body at meetings properly convened
and conducted. Concluding that the Open Meeting Law imposed a mandatory
obligation on the school board, the court held that the order adopted at the
illegal meeting was ineffectual.
II. ANNEXATION
During this survey period there have been a number of cases involving the
interpretation of the Municipal Annexation Act,' which was adopted in 1963.
The limitations imposed by the Act continue to be the source of much litiga-
tion. A significant case in this area is Fox Development Co.. v. City of San
Antonio.' In Fox the land in question was located outside the corporate limits
of San Antonio, but the city contended that it was within five miles of its cor-
porate limits as extended by ordinance, thus making the property subject to the
provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act. The appellant contended that the
land in question was not within five miles of the corporate limits of San
Antonio, since the annexation ordinance relied upon was void because the city
had by subterfuge extended the city limits along various roads exiting from
San Antonio in an attempt to evade the five-mile limitation of the Act. The
ordinance in question was one of a group of similar ordinances of the city ex-
tending its city limits five miles in length co-extensive with various highway
rights-of-way, and these were generally described as spoke ordinances. The
*LL.B., Dallas School of Law. Attorney at Law, Dallas, Texas.
'Ch. 271, § 1, [1967] Tex. Laws 597 (codified at TEX. REv. Civ. STAT. ANN. art.
6252-17 (1970)).
2466 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1971).
3TEx. REv. Civ. STAT. ANN. art. 970a (1963).
4468 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. 1971).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/smulr26&div=23&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Part III: Public Law - Local Government
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most