Court Opinion

ID: 9678325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:16:55.927139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:03.623236
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In its motion for rehearing the Board argues that, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Tex.Civ.PRAc. & Rem.Code Ann. § 37.006 (Vernon 1986),1 the City of Dallas was a necessary party to this action and the court had no jurisdiction to proceed in its absence.
This point was not raised either at trial or in the Board’s brief, and it may not now be raised for the first time. Moreover, the point is without merit for several reasons, one being that this action was not a declaratory judgment action involving the validity of a municipal ordinance.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 37.006(b) (Vernon 1986) provides:
In any proceeding that involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, the municipality must be made a party and is entitled to be heard, and if the statute, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state must also be served with a copy of the proceeding and is entitled to be heard.