green
Positive treatment
Issue: home ruleTX ↗
Issue: fundamental and universally accepted ruleTX ↗
Issue: powers of home ruleTX ↗
Issue: power of a home ruleTX ↗
Quoted verbatim 5×
23.1 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2003–2015 · 2 courts ·
…the result of the home rule amendment is that now it is necessary to look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of power to such cities but only for limitations on their powers.
at p. 286
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1948 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1948
1987
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dos Republicas Coal Partnership v. David Saucedo, as Floodplain Administrator and County Judge of the Maverick County Commissioners Court, and the Maverick County Commissioners Court
the result of the home rule amendment is that now it is necessary to look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of power to such cities but only for limitations on their powers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
City of Carrollton v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
the result of the home rule amendment is that now it is necessary to look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of power to such cities but only for limitations on their powers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
City of Carrollton v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Robert D. Balfanz, Truman Clem, Bettye Clem, C.T. Clem, Town of Hebron, Joe Everett, Julie Everett, John O. Grady, Ron Mabra, Willie Mabra, Charles Morris, Randall Morris and Sheri Morris
the result of the home rule amendment is that now it is necessary to look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of power to such cities but only for limitations on their powers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
City of Carrollton v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Robert D. Balfanz, Truman Clem, Bettye Clem, C.T. Clem, Town of Hebron, Joe Everett, Julie Everett, John O. Grady, Ron Mabra, Willie Mabra, Charles Morris, Randall Morris and Sheri Morris
the result of the home rule amendment is that now it is necessary to look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of power to such cities but only for limitations on their powers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne
the result of the home rule amendment is that now it is necessary to look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of power to such cities but only for limitations on their powers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alusi v. Frisco, Texas, City of
They are essentially “mini-legislatures,” with “full authority to do anything the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do.” Chacon, 273 S.W.3d at 378 (quoting Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948); City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 , 26 n.5 (Tex. 2003)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerry L. Saum, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Susan M. Wood v. City of College Station, Texas
Power & Light, 962 S.W.2d at 612 (citing Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Co. of Reading, Penn. v. Denise Bushman as Beneficiary of Clayton F. Bushman, Jr.
App.—Texarkana 1973, no writ). 9 Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 285-86 (Tex. 1948). 10 R.R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harry Bizios v. Town of Lakewood Village, Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 216.902, 372.003, 377.002, 382.109, 395.011. 14 unmistakable clarity.’”); Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161, 167 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948) (explaining that a home rule municipality has full authority to do anything the legislature could have authorized it to do).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harry Bizios v. Town of Lakewood Village, Texas
XI, § 5, these broad powers may be limited by statute when the Legislature’s intention to do so appears ‘with unmistakable clarity.’ ”); Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161, 167 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948) (explaining that a home rule municipality has full authority to do anything the legislature could have authorized it to do).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Quality, 128 S.W.3d 728, 738 (Tex. App.-Austin 2004, no pet.) (citing Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Frisco v. Commission on State Emergency Communications
They are essentially “mini-legislatures,” with “full authority to do anything the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do.” Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948); Chacon, 273 S.W.3d at 378 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Frisco v. Commission on State Emergency Communications
They are essentially "mini-legislatures," with "full authority to do anything the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do." Forwood v. City of Taylor , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948); Chacon , 273 S.W.3d at 378 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Chacon
This amendment, known as the “Home Rule Amendment,” essentially fashioned such cities into “mini-legislatures,” giving them “full authority to do anything the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do.” Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948); City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 , 26 n. 5 (Tex.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Springer v. Johnson
“A fundamental and universally accepted rule of construction is that a general provision must yield to a succeeding specific provision dealing with the same subject matter.” Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 285-86 (1948).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. the City of Galveston
In carrying out these purposes, the home-rule amendment and its enabling statutes authorized municipalities “to do anything [that] the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do.” Forwood v. City of Taylor , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948) (describing home-rule municipality as “a delegate of legislative power”) ; City of San Antonio , 111 S.W.3d at 26 n.5 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. the City of Galveston
I agree with the majority that the home-rule amendment “‘effectively created home rule cities as ‘mini-legislatures’” and authorized them “to do anything [that] the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do.” See City of San Antonio , 111 S.W.3d at 26 n.5; Forwood v. City of Taylor , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948) (describing home-rule municipality as “a delegate of legislative power”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. City of Galveston
(4×)
In carrying out these purposes, the home-rule amendment and its enabling statutes authorized municipalities "to do anything [that] the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do." Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948) (describing home-rule municipality as "a delegate of legislative power"); City of San Antonio, 111 S.W.3d at 26 n. 5.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
XI, 4 5; Lower Colorado River Auth. v. City of San Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641,643 (Tex. 1975); Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282,286 (Tex. 1948).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
XI, 5 5; Lower Colorado RiverAuth. v. CityofSan Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641,643 (Tex. 1975); Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lipscomb v. Randall
Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex.1948) (citing TEX.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Central Power & Light Co. v. City of San Juan
Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948); Sierra Club, 489 S.W.2d at 332-33 ; City of El Paso v. Town of Ascarate, 209 S.W.2d 989, 994 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1947, writ refd); City of Fort Worth v. Morrison, 164 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1942, writ refd); Yellow Cab Transit Co. v. Tuck, 115 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1938, writ refd).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Home-rule cities have %I1 power of self-government, that is, Ml authority to do anything the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do.” Forwood v. Ciry of Tqlor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948); see Tex. Const. art.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tyra v. City of Houston
(2×)
The result is that now it is necessary to look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of power to such cities but only for limitations on their powers.'" 523 S.W.2d at 643 (quoting Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948)). `The intention of the Legislature to impose such limitation must `appear with unmistakable clarity.'" 523 S.W.2d at 645 (quoting City of Sweetwater v. Geron, 380 S.W.2d 550, 552 (Tex.1964)). [3] The test was patterned after one used by the City of San Diego, California.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Nassau Bay v. City of Webster
The Supreme Court of Texas, on the other hand, has repeatedly recognized that “the cities of Texas are divided into three classes by the mode of their incorporation and that a statute expressly applicable to one does not apply to the others.” Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161, 165 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 285 (1948).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local Union No. 936
Home-rule cities have “full power of self-government” and, as a result, such cities must “look to the acts of the legislature, not for grants of power to such cities, but only for limitations on their powers.” Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Beaumont v. Jones
In Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948), the Court said: “It was the purpose of the Home Rule Amendment, Art.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Id. at 643-44 ; Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. Sup. 1948). - p. 3855 The Honorable Raul L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Beaumont v. Bond
(2×)
Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Austin Independent School District
Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948); Yellow Cab Transit Co. v. Tuck, 115 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Tex.Civ.App.
cited
Cited "see"
Town of Lakewood Village v. Harry Bizios
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 285 (Tex. 1948).
cited
Cited "see"
Town of Lakewood Village v. Bizios
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 285 (1948).
cited
Cited "see"
Town of Lakewood Village v. Harry Bizios
See Forewood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1948).
discussed
Cited "see"
FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Frank Frausto, Jr.
See Springer v. Johnson, 280 S.W.3d 322, 329 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.) (it is a “fundamental and universally accepted rule of construction . . . that a general provision must yield to a succeeding specific provision dealing with the same subject matter.” Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 285-86 (1948)). 8 affidavit was properly excluded by the trial court from consideration as summary judgment evidence, trial court properly granted summary judgment because there was no evidence of an element of plaintiff’s claim).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walton v. City of Midland
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948) 8 ; see also City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Tex.2007) (home rule cities have “all the powers of the state not inconsistent with the Constitution, the general laws, or the city’s charter”).
cited
Cited "see"
Brazoria County, Texas v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, F/K/A Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Transportation Commission And Texas Department of Transportation
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948).
cited
Cited "see"
Brazoria County, Texas v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, F/K/A Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Transportation Commission And Texas Department of Transportation
See Forwood v. City of Taylor , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. 1948).
cited
Cited "see"
Brazoria County v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 286 (1948).
discussed
Cited "see"
Laidlaw Waste Systems (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer
(2×)
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282, 285 (1948).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Forewood v. Ctty of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tar. 1948).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Porwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1948); Cole v. Stazex rel.
cited
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1948); Cole v. State ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282 (1948); Yellow Cab Transit Co., Inc. v. Tuck et al., Tex.Civ.App. (1938), 115 S.W.2d 455 , wr. ref.; City of Houston v. City of Magnolia Park, 115 Tex. 101 , 276 S.W. 685 (1925). . . ." (at p. 785).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Rose v. City of La Porte
See Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161 , 214 S.W.2d 282 (1948); Yellow Cab Transit Co., Inc. v. Tuck et al., Tex.Civ.App. (1938), 115 S.W.2d 455 , wr. ref.; City of Houston v. City of Magnolia Park, 115 Tex. 101 , 276 S.W. 685 (1925).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Sam Bassett Lumber Co. v. City of Houston, 198 S.W.2d 879, 881 (Tex. 1947); see also Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1948).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Opinion No.
Sam Bassett Lumber Co. v. City of Houston, 198 S.W.2d 879 , 881 (Tex. 1947); see also Forwood v. City of Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1948).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ben McGraw Et Al
v.
F. C. (Fred) Teichman
v.
F. C. (Fred) Teichman
No. A-1874..
Texas Supreme Court.
Oct 27, 1948.
Riley Strickland, of Amarillo, for appellant.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this case under Rule 499a (b) because the validity of a statute of this State, to-wit: Article 1011g R.C.S. and the validity of an administrative order issued under said statute are involved. Washington v. City of Dallas, 159 S.W.2d 579 ; Glenn v. Dallas County Bois D Arc Island Levee Dist., 268 S.W. 452 ; City of San Angelo v. Boehme Bakery, 190 S.W.2d 67 .
J.L. Bagwell, of Amarillo, for appellee.
Taylor.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Taylor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
F. C. (Fred) Teichman, plaintiff in a suit filed in the 47th District Court of Potter County, Texas, against Ben McGraw, procured the issuance out of that court of a temporary injunction enjoining McGraw, his agents and employees, from further proceeding with the erection of a business building on a lot admittedly within an area theretofore zoned by the City of Amarillo as a residential and apartment area. McGraw, under the purported authority of a building permit issued to him by the Amarillo Board of Adjustment, had begun construction of the proposed building when the writ of injunction was served on him. The interlocutory order recited as the basis for its issuance the alleged use of unlawful authority of the Bocurd of Adjustment, “in and for the City of Amarillo', Texas,” in issuing the permit. (Emphasis added). It appears from the foregoing statement, the facts of which are reflected by the transcript of the proceedings below, that the agency which issued the permit is nor a state board or commission, but is a city board.
[*144] The cause is before us on appeal by McGraw from the action of the district court in issuing the temporary injunction. We are confronted at the outset with the question of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, which appellant McGraw contends he is entitled to prosecute directly to this Court.
The contention is overruled. No “administrative order issued by a state board or commission” is involved in the suit; nor is a question of “the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a statute,” involved. This Court is therefore without jurisdiction to hear the cause on direct appeal, and it should be dismissed. Art. 1738a, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St.; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 499-a, Sec. b. It is accordingly so ordered.
Opinion delivered October 27, 1948.
No motion for rehearing filed.