Court Opinion

ID: 9672560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:57:11.569496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.160720
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
McDonald, judge.
The City, in its motion for rehearing, relies on the proposition that the larger transport carrying 8,000 gallons of gasoline will allow more fumes or vapors to escape and thus a need for regulation is created as a safety measure.
A thorough review of the record, with careful consideration given to that portion of the statement of facts which Respondent points out as the basis for this contention, leads us to a contrary conclusion. The record reflects that the prohibited deliveries create no greater danger of fire than those allowed under the ordinance. The above contention of the Respondent is therefore without merit.
The City contends secondly that the appellant has not met his burden in proving the ordinance to be discriminatory, unreasonable and arbitrary and thus unconstitutional. In support of this contention Respondent cites City of Bellaire v. Lamkin, 159 Tex. 141, 317 S.W.2d 43, 66 A.L.R.2d 1289. We cannot agree that Lamkin is contrary to our holding on original submission of this cause. The extraordinary burden has been met, the test being whether or not there is a reasonable basis for the creation of this class by the city council. San Antonio Retail Grocers, Inc. v. Lafferty, 156 Tex. 574, 297 S.W.2d 813; see also our original opinion and cases cited therein.
“Ordinances relative to the storage, transportation and handling of gasoline and oil, like all ordinances must be reasonable and not arbitrary.” Mc-Quillin on Municipal’ Corporations,. Vol. 7 Section 24.477.
We remain convinced that our prior opinion correctly disposed of this case.
The Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing is overruled.