City of Abilene v. Shackelford

16 Citing cases

  1. Cameron County Good Government League v. Ramon

    619 S.W.2d 224 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)   Cited 27 times
    Stating "[i]t is difficult to see how the Legislature could broaden the class of 'any interested person.' "

    See also Lower Colorado Riv. Auth. v. City of San Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. 1975). Defendants cite City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1978). But, this case was reversed in 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979).

  2. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News

    22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000)   Cited 453 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party resisting disclosure had โ€œburden to prove that the [information] is not subject to the Actโ€

    Persons seeking information under the Act have sued for declaratory judgment rather than mandamus. See City of San Antonio v. Texas Att'y Gen., 851 S.W.2d 946, 947 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, writ denied); City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 743 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979); Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1975), writ ref'd n.r.e., 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1976). Others have sued for declaratory judgment in addition to mandamus.

  3. A & T Consultants Inc. v. Sharp

    904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that courts may neither consider purpose of the request nor inquire into how the requestor intends to use the information

    Persons seeking information under TORA have sometimes sued for declaratory judgment rather than mandamus. E.g., City of San Antonio, 851 S.W.2d at 947; City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 743 (Tex.Civ.App. โ€” Eastland 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979); Houston Chronicle Publishing, 531 S.W.2d at 181. Others have sued for declaratory judgment in addition to mandamus.

  4. Shackelford v. City of Abilene

    585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979)   Cited 19 times
    In Shackelford v. City of Abilene, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.1979), the supreme court refused to construe the โ€œparticularized harmโ€ requirement narrowly.

    The Court of Civil Appeals sitting in Eastland reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for the Board holding, on the principal question, that Shackelford did not have the proper standing to maintain such a suit. 572 S.W.2d 742 (1978). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

  5. Burleson v. Collin Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.

    No. 05-21-00088-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 20, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    The College asks us to adopt the minority view, held by only one Texas court, that an "interested person" must demonstrate "particular injury or damage, and he must allege and show how he has been injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public." City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979).

  6. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Peters

    No. 05-14-00759-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2015)

    One appellate court has held that an "interested person" under the Open Meetings Act "must show particular injury or damage, and he must allege and show how he has been injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public." City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Tex. Civ. App.โ€”Eastland 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979). Groves is illustrative of what is required under the broader, majority reading of standing under the Act.

  7. Burks v. Yarbrough

    157 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App. 2005)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that Open Meetings Act, which provides that an "interested person ... may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body" broadly conferred standing

    TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. ยง 551.142(a) (Vernon 2004). Appellees contend that an "interested person" under the Open Meetings Act must still demonstrate a particularized injury, relying on City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 745-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979). The Shackelford court applied general standing principles and held that an "interested person" under the Open Meetings Act "must show particular injury or damage, and he must allege and show how he has been injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public."

  8. San Antonio v. Hardee

    70 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that the landowners lacked standing to challenge annexation based on procedural violations of Section 43.052, the City Charter, and the City Code

    The standing provision was adopted along with the initial version of the Act in 1967. See City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 746-47 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1978) (interpreting use of term "interested person" in former Section 3 of Article 6252-17, which became effective May 23, 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979)). Additionally, there are public policy reasons for holding that an annexation action taken by a city should be subject to challenge for violation of the Open Meetings Act.

  9. Matagorda Cty Hosp. v. Palacios

    47 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 17 times
    Following the majority of courts that have broadly interpreted the phrase "interested person" under the Open Meetings Act

    The majority of courts addressing the "interested person" requirement have adopted an extremely broad interpretation regarding who constitutes an "interested person." See Rivera v. City of Laredo, 948 S.W.2d 787, 792 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, writ denied) (adopting broad definition of "interested person"); Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Lowry, 934 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, orig. proceeding) ("The Texas legislature exercised its discretion to grant broader standing to citizens under the Open Meetings Act."); City of Fort Worth v. Groves, 746 S.W.2d 907, 913 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1988, no writ) (viewing "interested person" as affected taxpayer and citizen based on underlying purpose of act); Cameron County Good Gov't League v. Ramon, 619 S.W.2d 224, 230-31 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("it is difficult to see how the legislature could broaden the class of 'any interested person'"); but see City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 745-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1978) (interpreting "interested person" as requiring plaintiff to show particular injury or damage different than public at large), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979); see also City of Bells, 744 S.W.2d at 639-40 (applying general rules regarding standing without differentiating standing under Open Meetings Act). In keeping with the majority of courts that have addressed this issue, we believe the Open Meetings Act should be construed broadly.

  10. Hays County Water Planning Partnership v. Hays County

    41 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    Holding the Act was violated when there was "nothing in the posting that would give a resident of Hays County any inkling of the substance of proposed presentation"

    Although the Open Meetings Act allows an "interested person" to bring an action to correct a violation of the act, see Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ยง 551.142(a), Hays County contends that HCWPP failed to present any evidence that its members were affected other than as members of the general public. See City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 745-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979). In keeping with the purpose of the act, standing under the Open Meetings Act is interpreted broadly.