concluding that Board of Adjustment’s decision to revoke a building permit was an exercise of Davidson (BCAD’s counsel
How later courts described this case
- concluding that Board of Adjustment’s decision to revoke a building permit was an exercise of Davidson (BCAD’s counsel
- stating that official immunity’s purpose is to ensure public officials “act in the public interest with confidence and without the hesitation that could arise from having their judgment continually questioned by extended litigation”
- holding that members of city’s Board of Adjustment acted within scope of authority in revoking building permit where statute conferred authority to revoke, even though court had determined that the Board was incorrect
- holding that members of city’s Board of Adjustment acted within scope of authority in revoking building permit even though court had found that members were incorrect in revoking permit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice O’NEILL,
concurring,
in which Justice HECHT and Justice JEFFERSON joined.
I agree with the Court that the standard for official immunity is objective good faith. But I write separately to note that challenging the board members’ deliberative actions in this case in negligence terms, when the claim is that the board members acted with bad intent, is inappropriate. If the members’ decision was arbitrary or irrational, Champion might assert a substantive due-process claim. See, e.g., Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 938 (Tex.1998). Had Champion been treated differently from other similarly situated developers absent a rational basis, they might assert an equal-protection violation. See id. at 939 . And if Champion was denied an appropriate and meaningful opportunity to be heard, procedural due process might be implicated. See id. But negligence simply has no application here where the board members’ actions are alleged to be intentional. With this notation, I fully join the Court’s opinion and concur in its judgment.