Court Opinion

ID: 9654793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:51:15.353599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:13.620676
License: Public Domain

*128GREEN, Chief Justice
(concurring).
In City of Corpus Christi v. Gilley, Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi 1964, 379 S.W.2d 84, wr. ref. n. r. e., which was an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction in this cause, we held the portions of Corpus Christi City Ordinance No. 6530 requiring payment of a fee to the City for the issuance and/or renewal of a City Chauffeur’s License to be in conflict with certain statutes, and particularly Art. 6687b, V.A.T.S., and hence void. See also Art. 6698, V.A.T.S. I remain of the view that said portions of the ordinance are void and unenforceable.
I have examined, along with the rest of the record of this appeal, the stipulations agreed upon at the trial on the merits and contained in the transcript. I have also considered the statement of facts of the evidence on the hearing for a temporary injunction which was filed with us on the appeal from that hearing, supra, and which was introduced into evidence as an exhibit and considered by the court in the trial on the merits. It is my conclusion that the record on the instant appeal, including the aforementioned documents, fully supports the judgment of the trial court enjoining the enforcement by appellant of the void provisions of the ordinance here involved.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.