Legal Opinion · Dissent

Willis v. Potts

Texas Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1964No. A-10034Published

1DissentHamilton, Justice

I agree with the court’s holding that the office of City Councilman of the City of Fort Worth is a lucrative office, but I cannot agree with, the court that the City Councilman is an officer under this state within the meaning of Aritcle III, Section 19 of the Constitution.

A home rule city possesses powers not denied by statute or Constitution so long as the city has incorporated these powers in its charter. There are many powers which the City of Fort Worth could exercise under the Constitution and statutes, but it cannot do so because they are not contained in its charter. See Davis v. City…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. W.D. Yett, Mayor v. CookTexas Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Davis v. City of TaylorTexas Supreme Court · 1934
  3. State ex rel. Young v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  4. Wood v. MillerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  5. Zachry v. City of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1957

9 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