Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Allen Mark Dacus, Elizabeth C. Perez, and Rev. Robert Jefferson v. Annise D. Parker and City of Houston

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 2015No. 13-0047Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE GUZMAN, joined by JUSTICE WILLETT,

concurring.

I agree with the Court that the language of the ballot proposition was sufficiently uncertain and indefinite as to be potentially misleading. I further agree that by not describing the nature of the drainage charges, the ballot language omitted a chief feature of the proposition, thereby violating the common-law standard governing ballot clarity. I write separately to indicate my confidence in the continued viability of the common-law standard as it applies to ballot questions and to underscore its particular utility in the context of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hurt v. CooperTexas Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Tracfone Wireless, Inc. and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. v. Commission on State Emergency CommunicationsTexas Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Turner v. LewieCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1947
  4. Opinion of the Justices to the SenateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  5. Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabeTexas Supreme Court · 1888

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