Legal Opinion

City of Port Arthur v. Bowling

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 5, 1977No. 7924PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KEITH, Justice.

City appeals from a judgment based upon jury findings that its maintenance of a sewer line constituted a nuisance amounting to a constitutional damaging of plaintiffs’ property and the jury fixed the amount of damages at $11,800. City has prosecuted the appeal upon four points of error but we do not find it necessary to discuss each since we are of the opinion that the second point, interposing the two-year statute of limitations, is valid and dispositive of the cause. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and now render judgment for City for the reasons now to be stated.1

O…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brazos River Authority v. City of GrahamTexas Supreme Court · 1961
  2. City of Abilene v. DownsTexas Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Sherman Gas & Electric Co. v. BeldenTexas Supreme Court · 1909
  4. City of Houston v. McFaddenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
  5. Bowling v. City of Port ArthurCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1975

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Samaad v. City of DallasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
  2. Walker v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1992
  3. City of Abilene v. Smithwick, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)1986
  4. Abdul Muhammad Samaad v. City of Dallas, State Fair of Texas, Dallas Grand Prix Co., and Larry Waldrop, Delores Pierce v. City of Dallas, Auto Racing of Dallas, Inc., and Sports Car Club of America, Inc., Delores Pierce v. City of Dallas, Frank WiseCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
  5. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. William Justiss, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2010

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API