Legal Opinion
City of Houston v. Fore
Texas Supreme Court
Decided February 22, 1967No. A-11500PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WALKER, Justice.
The question to be decided is whether, under the facts of the present case, constructive notice by publication of the hearing on the assessment of costs of street improvements against abutting owners as provided in Article 1105b, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ. Stat, satisfies the requirements of the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States. We hold that notice by publication was not sufficient as to the particular owner who is involved in this action.
Suit was filed by the City of Houston, petitioner, against R. H. Fore, respondent, to recover the amount of two paving…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Walker v. City of HutchinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Londoner v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Browning v. HooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Cunningham v. Parkdale BankTexas Supreme Court · 1983
- Madden v. Texas Board of Chiropractic ExaminersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1983
- Martinez v. Texas State Board of Medical ExaminersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
- Thompson v. Texas State Board of Medical ExaminersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1978
- Estate of Ross, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.