Legal Opinion

City of Dayton v. Allred

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1934No. 6650PublishedCited by 68 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Judge CRITZ

delivered the opinion of the Commission, Section A.

This is an original mandamus proceeding instituted by the City of Dayton et a!., hereinafter called Relators, against the Honorable James Y. Allred, Attorney General of Texas, hereinafter called Respondent, to compel his approval of certain bonds of such city in the sum of $22,500.00 designated as “city OF DAYTON SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS.” All fact questions are admitted; only law questions being involved.

It appears from this record that on January 4, 1934, the City Council of the City of Dayton, Texas, passed an ordinance…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Graves v. HornTexas Supreme Court · 1895
  2. McNeal v. City of WacoTexas Supreme Court · 1895
  3. City of Fort Worth v. BobbittTexas Supreme Court · 1931
  4. City of Fort Worth v. BobbittTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  5. Wiener v. ZweibTexas Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by68 opinions

  1. Texas National Guard Armory Board. v. McCrawTexas Supreme Court · 1939
  2. City of Beaumont v. MooreTexas Supreme Court · 1947
  3. State Ex Rel. Grimes County Taxpayers Ass'n v. Texas Municipal Power AgencyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1978
  4. Lower Colorado River Authority v. McCrawTexas Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Prize Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2011

63 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