Roskey v. Texas Health Facilities Commission
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2023Baxsto, LLC v. ROXO Energy Company, LLC ROXO Energy, LLC REC Minerals, LLC ROXO FW, LLC And Vortus Investment Advisors, LLC Tex. App.
- 2018Brazos Transit District v. Twila Phillips Tex. App.
- 2017Kevin Geheb v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. Tex. App.
- 2016Scripps NP Operating, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company, Successor in Interest to Scripps Texas Newspapers, LP D/B/A Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the E.W. Scripps Company v. Terry Carter Tex. Crim. App.
- 2016Scripps NP Operating, LLC v. Carter Tex. App. Ct.
- 2015Brian McEnery v. City of San Antonio and Chief Charles N. Hood Tex. App.
- 2015Ranchero Esperanza, Ltd. v. Marathon Oil Co. Tex. App.
- 2015Sciscoe v. Texas) Tex. App.
- 2015Brandon Darby v. the New York Times Company and James C. McKinley, Jr. Tex. App.
- 2014Julie Johnson v. Bank of America, N.A. Tex. App.
Cites 3 cases
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority
- Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. City of Dallas
- Roskey v. Texas Health Facilities Commission
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
O. V. ROSKEY, Individually and as Agent for the Burleson County Taxpayers Grievance Committee, Petitioner, v. TEXAS HEALTH FACILITIES COMMISSION, et al., Respondents.
Attorneys
- Wood, Lucksinger & Epsetin, William D. Darling, Austin, for petitioner.
- Mark White, Atty. Gen., Nancy Lynch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Davis & Davis, Fred E. Davis, Austin, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment. O. V. Roskey, for himself and as agent for the Burleson County Taxpayers Grievance Committee, sued the Texas Health Facilities Commission, the Burleson County Hospital District and Thomas L. Goodnight Memorial Hospital, Inc., seeking a declaratory judgment that an exemption certificate issued by the Commission was void. The certificate was issued pursuant to section 3.02(a)(4) of the Health Planning and Development Act and authorized the Hospital District to construct a new hospital in order to bring the District’s health facilities into compliance with federal and state law. The Hospital District applied for the certificate on April 27, 1979, and the certificate was issued on July 26, 1979. During the interim, section 3.02(a)(4) was repealed, effective May 17. Roskey contends the certificate is void because it was issued after section 3.02(a)(4) was repealed. All three defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that Roskey and the taxpayers had no standing and had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The trial court sustained the motion for summary judgment on both grounds and dismissed the cause with prejudice. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court only on the ground that the taxpayers lacked standing.
In their petition, the plaintiffs alleged they were all taxpaying residents of the Hospital District and that the construction of a new hospital would result in higher taxes. The court of appeals, 630 S.W.2d 844, affirmed the summary judgment, noting there was no summary judgment proof that the District had taken any step toward increasing taxes. The court of appeals improperly placed on the nonmoving taxpayers the burden of proving standing. The movant has the burden of proving as a matter of law his entitlement to summary judgment. Tex.Tt.Civ.Pro. 166-A; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company v. City of Dallas, 623 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.1981); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979). The defendants, the movants, produced no summary judgment proof to show that the taxpayers did not have standing.
The defendants contend we should affirm the court of appeals’ judgment on the exhaustion of remedies ground. Here also, the defendants failed to produce any summary judgment proof that the taxpayers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
The opinion of the court of appeals conflicts with Tex.R.Civ.Pro. 166-A and the opinions of this Court in Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company v. City of Dallas, supra, and City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, supra. Therefore, pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.Pro. 483 and without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court.
. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4418h.