Sec. 391.002. PURPOSE. (a) Subject to the availability of state and federal funds, it is the intent of the legislature to comply with the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (23 U.S.C. Sections 131, 136, 319) to the extent that it is implemented by the United States Congress. This chapter is conditioned on that law.
(b) The legislature declares that it is necessary to regulate the erection and maintenance of commercial signs and the establishment, operation, and maintenance of junkyards in areas adjacent to the interstate and primary systems to:
(1) promote the health, safety, welfare, morals, convenience, and enjoyment of the traveling public; and
(2) protect the public investment in the interstate and primary systems.
(c) The legislature considers that the following are means of protecting and providing for the general welfare of the traveling public and promoting the safety of citizens using the highways of this state:
(1) landscaping and developing recreational areas;
(2) acquiring interests in and improving strips of real property within, adjacent to, or within view of the interstate or primary system that are necessary for the restoration, preservation, and enhancement of scenic beauty; and
(3) developing publicly owned and controlled rest and sanitary facilities in or adjacent to highway rights-of-way.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 964 (S.B. 2006), Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2017.
Notes of Decisions
Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Barber, 111 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2003).
· cites it 4× “The distinctions drawn by the Act are not justified by its laudable purposes. Accordingly, I must dissent.”
Auspro Enter., LP v. Texas Dep't of Transp. (Tex. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “at 2, 32; CR72 (TxDOT contending that that “[t]he purpose of the HBA is to control the secondary effects of billboards and signs along State highways such as stemming visual clutter on the landscape and promoting travel safety”); TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 391.002(b) (1), (2)…”
Auspro Enter., LP v. Texas Dep't of Transp. (Tex. App. 2016).
“27 Reed,120 we cannot say with any certainty what the Texas Legislature will want in terms of a ban on highway signs in the absence of a federal act requiring one.”
Tex. Transp. Code § 391.002(a): 3 cases
Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Barber, 111 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2003).
“The distinctions drawn by the Act are not justified by its laudable purposes. Accordingly, I must dissent.”
Auspro Enter., LP v. Texas Dep't of Transp. (Tex. App. 2016).
“27 Reed,120 we cannot say with any certainty what the Texas Legislature will want in terms of a ban on highway signs in the absence of a federal act requiring one.”
Tex. Transp. Code § 391.002(b): 5 cases
Auspro Enter., LP v. Texas Dep't of Transp. (Tex. App. 2015).
“at 2, 32; CR72 (TxDOT contending that that “[t]he purpose of the HBA is to control the secondary effects of billboards and signs along State highways such as stemming visual clutter on the landscape and promoting travel safety”); TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 391.002(b) (1), (2)…”
Tex. Transp. Code § 391.002(b)(1): 2 cases
Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Barber, 111 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2003).
“The distinctions drawn by the Act are not justified by its laudable purposes. Accordingly, I must dissent.”
Auspro Enter., LP v. Texas Dep't of Transp. (Tex. App. 2015).
“at 2, 32; CR72 (TxDOT contending that that “[t]he purpose of the HBA is to control the secondary effects of billboards and signs along State highways such as stemming visual clutter on the landscape and promoting travel safety”); TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 391.002(b) (1), (2)…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.