Court Opinion

ID: 9672518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:56:19.24245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.758885
License: Public Domain

FULLER, Justice,
concurring.
On February 1,1989, the Appellants filed their Original Answer in which the City clearly stated that Appellees had not exhausted their administrative remedies because they had failed to pursue the acquisition of a variance or special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of El Paso. Further, such failure to exhaust their administrative remedies precluded Madero from seeking relief for a “taking” of property in the district court under Article I, § Í7 of the Texas Constitution.
At the hearing on its Motion for Summary Judgment, the City clearly stated to the trial judge:
MR. CAYLOR: May it please the Court, the legal issue which is being brought to the Court this morning can be expressed in one word, “ripeness.” The City’s position with respect to that legal issue can be expressed in one sentence, and that is, that this case is not ripe to be presented to this Court because the City has never taken any final action under the ordinance which is being challenged by the Plaintiffs today.
On the Motion for Directed Verdict filed at close of Madero’s case-in-chief, Appellants again clearly pointed out the contention of want or lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to proceed based on lack of ripeness of the controversy.
I agree that the trial court erred in proceeding to trial and entering judgment because the matter of “taking” simply was not “ripe” for judicial determination.