City of San Antonio v. Pigeonhole Parking of Texas, Inc.
Texas Supreme Court
1DissentJustice Griffin
The fundamental difference in my viewpoint and that of the majority, as I see it, is that I believe the Texas law, and the law in a vast majority of the other states, is to the effect that the right of ingress to Houston Street is property while the majority opinion treats it as a license, or privilege, which may be taken away from the lot owner by the City under its police power, and without adequate compensation being paid. I believe the right of ingress and egress to Houston Street is as much a property right as is the soil constituting the lot on which the City permitted Pigeonhole to…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. FullerTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- McCammon & Lang Lumber Co. v. Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1911
- Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
- Town of Ascarate v. VillalobosTexas Supreme Court · 1949
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.