Source: http://houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Mattox-v-County-Commissioners-Court-Dissent-by-Frost-cancellation-of-subdivision-road.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:08:07+00:00

Document:
the district court's summary judgment on this basis alone.
Trial Court Judge: Albert M McCaig Jr.
remands based on a different analysis, I respectfully dissent.
“Mattox Parties") purchased lots 35 and 36 in the Hill Forest Manor Subdivision (hereinafter the “Subdivision").
plat reflects borders on Hill Forrest Lane.
road at that location for the County to abandon or vacate."
 as the basis for the relief that they requested. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 232.008 (Vernon 2005).
the application by a 3-2 vote.
compelling the Commissioners Court Parties to grant this relief.
232.008. The district court denied the former motion and granted the latter motion.
The propriety of both rulings is before this court on appeal.
the county tax assessor-collector shall assess the property as if it had never been subdivided.
preceding year, the county tax assessor-collector shall back assess the tract on an acreage basis.
court, the grant of an order of cancellation is at the discretion of the court.
the date of the entry of the commissioners court's order granting the cancellation.
the cancellation will prevent the proposed interconnection of infrastructure to pending or existing development.
Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 232.008.
unambiguous, this court adopts the interpretation supported by the plain meaning of the provision's words. St.
strained construction; instead, it must yield to the plain sense of the words the legislature chose. See id.
material fact issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment. M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.
evidence. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex. 2007).
grounds for summary judgment asserted in their respective motions. See id.
have raised the issue of whether, in their application, they complied with section 232.008.
include in this proposed cancellation, the cancellation of a dedicated easement or roadway. See Tex. Loc.
the Mattox Parties' Motion. For these reasons, the Mattox Parties' first and third issues should be overruled.
issue and reverse the district court's summary judgment on this basis alone.
proceedings consistent with the analysis set forth above.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Frost (Hedges, C.J., majority).
 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references in this opinion are to the Texas Local Government Code.
 Other statutes give commissioners courts the authority to close, abandon, vacate, or alter public roads. See Tex. Transp.
Code Ann. § 251.051. Indeed, the Mattox Parties unsuccessfully sought such relief from the Commissioners Court in July 2006.
their live pleading in this case that the Commissioners Court correctly denied this application.
because the Commissioners Court Parties did not file a sufficient answer to the petition. This ground also lacks merit.
because the Commissioners Court Parties did not raise this issue as a ground in their motion for summary judgment.
to land subdivided or a plat filed on or after September 1, 1999. See Act of May 5, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 129, § 10, 1999 Tex.
presume that subsection (h) applies to this case.
 The court correctly overrules the fifth issue and concludes that this court need not address the second issue.

References: § 232
 § 232
 v. 
 v. 
 § 251
 § 10