Pentecost v. Travelers Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. City of Lubbock

    326 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. 1959)   Cited 97 times
    Upholding an urban renewal initiative providing for redevelopment of slum areas by private enterprises, subject to certain restrictions, partially on the basis of a legislative declaration

    Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. IIigginbotham, 1940, 135 Tex. 158, 143 S.W.2d 79, at page 84, 130 A.L.R. 1053; L-M-S., Inc. v. Blackwell, 1950, 149 Tex. 348, 233 S.W.2d 286, at page 290; West v. Whitehead, Tex.Civ.App. 1922, 238 S.W. 976 (wr. ref.). Supra note 10, at page 85 of 143 S.W.2d. Similarly in the West case, supra note 10, in which a writ of error was refused, it was said that while the question was a judicial one, 'Where the Legislature declares a particular use to be a public use the presumption is in favor of this declaration, and will be binding upon the courts unless such use is clearly and palpably of a private character.' ( 238 S.W.2d 978) In City of Corsicana v. Wren, 1958, 317 S.W.2d 516, 520, this Court held that a similar legislative determination (in a field in which it is equally competent to decide) was not exclusively a judicial function but was also a legislative function which the courts may review, but which ought to be respected by the courts unless the legislative classification is 'arbitrary or clearly at variance with 'well established and well defined' law on the subject * * *.' The writer and three other justices disagreed with the majority on this point.

  2. Nichols v. Smith

    489 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. Civ. App. 1973)   Cited 11 times

    Crain v. Davis, 417 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.Sup., 1967); Judd v. American Home Assurance Co., 297 S.W.2d 284 (Eastland Tex.Civ.App., 1956, no writ hist.); Bliss v. City of Fort Worth, 288 S.W.2d 558 (Fort Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 1956, ref., n.r.e.); Pentecost v. Travelers Ins. Co., 238 S.W.2d 978 (Galveston Tex.Civ.App., 1951, no writ hist.); Jones v. United States Fire Insurance Company, 420 S.W.2d 160 (Amarillo Tex.Civ.App., 1967, ref., n.r.e.); Leach v. Cassity's Estate, 279 S.W.2d 630 (Fort Worth Tex.Civ.App., 1955, ref., n.r.e.)

  3. Houston Shoe Hospital v. State

    423 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. Civ. App. 1968)   Cited 1 times

    Here, appellants' opposing affidavit consists of conclusions and deductions of excessiveness and contains no Factual information of any nature that would indicate that the tax had been incorrectly assessed. This is not sufficient. See Langford v. Langford, Tex.Civ.App., 337 S.W.2d 181, no writ history, and Pentecost v. Travelers Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 978, no writ history. '* * * general statements in the nature of legal conclusions, not supported by factual statements, are not sufficient to raise a fact issue.' Hutchinson v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 290 S.W.2d 253, 257, no writ history.

  4. Heath v. City of Abilene

    337 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Civ. App. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    Appellant's opposing affidavit only sets forth conclusions and deductions and did not state facts showing that the tax on his automobiles had been incorrectly assessed. See Pentecost v. Travelers Insurance Co., Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 978. Judgment affirmed.