15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman v. Davisgreen2 sentences2017A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures; he or she may not sue to recover funds previously expended or challenge expendí- tures that are merely “unwise or indiscreet.” Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 180 (citing Hoffman v. Davis, 128 Tex. 503 , 100 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex. 1937), and Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200 ). 2012A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures; a taxpayer may not sue to recover funds previously expended, Hoffman v. Davis, 128 Tex. 503 , 100 S.W.2d 94, 96 (1937), or challenge expenditures that are merely “unwise or indiscreet,” Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200. | 7 | 7 |
Williams v. Laragreen2 sentences2025See Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 180 (Tex. 2001) (“A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures . . . .”); City of Austin v. McCall, 68 S.W. 791, 794 (Tex. 1902) (“The citizen need not wait until an unlawful contract has been consummated, but may prevent the wrongful act by injunction.”); Hendee v. Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354 , 379–80 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied) (“We see no meaningful distinction, for example, between a taxpayer suit to enjoin expenditures under an allegedly void or illegal contract . . . and a taxpayer suit to prevent expenditu 2025See Wil- liams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 178 (Tex. 2001) (“A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures” (emphasis added)). | 6 | 13 |
City of Austin v. McCallgreen1 sentence2025See Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 180 (Tex. 2001) (“A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures . . . .”); City of Austin v. McCall, 68 S.W. 791, 794 (Tex. 1902) (“The citizen need not wait until an unlawful contract has been consummated, but may prevent the wrongful act by injunction.”); Hendee v. Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354 , 379–80 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied) (“We see no meaningful distinction, for example, between a taxpayer suit to enjoin expenditures under an allegedly void or illegal contract . . . and a taxpayer suit to prevent expenditu | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Neeleygreen1 sentence2024However, as for any suit involving an imminent future injury, a taxpayer seeking prospective relief “may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures.” Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 180 (Tex. 2001) (emphasis added); Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom, 319 S.W.3d at 920 (“As long as the public money has not yet been spent, the taxpayer is considered to have a justiciable interest in ensuring that the money not be spent illegally.”); Robinson v. Neeley, 192 S.W.3d 904, 911 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (“The taxpayer may not sue to recover amounts already illegally | 1 | 1 |
Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom v. Saenzgreen1 sentence2024However, as for any suit involving an imminent future injury, a taxpayer seeking prospective relief “may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures.” Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 180 (Tex. 2001) (emphasis added); Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom, 319 S.W.3d at 920 (“As long as the public money has not yet been spent, the taxpayer is considered to have a justiciable interest in ensuring that the money not be spent illegally.”); Robinson v. Neeley, 192 S.W.3d 904, 911 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (“The taxpayer may not sue to recover amounts already illegally | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Osborne v. Keith
green
2 sentences2017A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures; he or she may not sue to recover funds previously expended or challenge expendí- tures that are merely “unwise or indiscreet.” Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 180 (citing Hoffman v. Davis, 128 Tex. 503 , 100 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex. 1937), and Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200 ). 2006A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures; he or she may not sue to recover funds previously expended or challenge expenditures that are merely “unwise or indiscreet.” Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 180 (citing Hoffman v. Davis, 100 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex. 1937), and Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200 ). | 4 | 2001–2017 |
Bland Independent School District v. Blue
green
2 sentences2017Underpinning these limitations is the realization that “governments cannot operate if every citizen who concludes that a public official has abused his discretion is- granted the right to come into court and bring such official’s public acts under judicial review.” Id. (quoting Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200 , and citing Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 555 ). 2006Underpinning these limitations is the realization that “governments cannot operate if every citizen who concludes that a public official has abused his discretion is granted the right to come into court and bring such official’s public acts under judicial review.” Id. (quoting Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200 , and citing Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 555 ). | 4 | 2001–2017 |
Hoffman v. Davis
green
2 sentences2017A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures; he or she may not sue to recover funds previously expended or challenge expendí- tures that are merely “unwise or indiscreet.” Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 180 (citing Hoffman v. Davis, 128 Tex. 503 , 100 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex. 1937), and Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200 ). 2012A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures; a taxpayer may not sue to recover funds previously expended, Hoffman v. Davis, 128 Tex. 503 , 100 S.W.2d 94, 96 (1937), or challenge expenditures that are merely “unwise or indiscreet,” Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200. | 4 | 2001–2017 |
Hendee v. Dewhurst
green
1 sentence2025See Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 180 (Tex. 2001) (“A taxpayer may maintain an action solely to challenge proposed illegal expenditures . . . .”); City of Austin v. McCall, 68 S.W. 791, 794 (Tex. 1902) (“The citizen need not wait until an unlawful contract has been consummated, but may prevent the wrongful act by injunction.”); Hendee v. Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354 , 379–80 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied) (“We see no meaningful distinction, for example, between a taxpayer suit to enjoin expenditures under an allegedly void or illegal contract . . . and a taxpayer suit to prevent expenditu | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Turner v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2019Moreover, under this exception, “a taxpayer may not sue to recover funds previously expended.” Id.; Turner v. Robinson, 534 S.W.3d 115 , 123–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (holding that taxpayer may challenge proposed illegal expenditures but may not recover funds previously expended or challenge expenditures that are merely “unwise or indiscreet”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |