Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Bridge City v. State Ex Rel. City of Port Arthur

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided June 18, 1990No. 09-89-053 CVPublished

1DissentBurgess, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I would reverse and enter a take nothing judgment. I analyze the case in the following manner.

THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION

Port Arthur originally filed the action for declaratory judgment seeking to declare the Bridge City annexation ordinances void. Port Arthur later filed an “Amended First Supplemental Petition” and the Quo War-ranto and first amended petition. Port Arthur sought the relief thus assuming the burden of persuasion that the annexations were void. They began their attack based upon the prior judgment. If they proved it was res judicata or that it collaterally…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Oake v. Collin CountyTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Benson v. Wanda Petroleum CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Texas Liquor Control Board v. Canyon Creek Land Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1970
  5. International Security Life Insurance Co. v. FinckTexas Supreme Court · 1973

27 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