# Block House Municipal Utility District v. City of Leander

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · July 10, 2009 · 291 S.W.3d 537

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664385

## Case

- **Full name:** BLOCK HOUSE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF LEANDER, Texas; And Anthony Johnson, Individually and in His Capacity as City Manager, Appellees
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** July 10, 2009
- **Citations:** 291 S.W.3d 537; 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5322; 2009 WL 1981427
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Patterson
- **Judges:** Patterson, Pemberton, Waldrop
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664385

## Opinion text

*549 JAN P. PATTERSON, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment only. I agree with the majority that, once a municipality determines under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code section 26.001(a) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of parkland, the municipality’s determination is conclusive unless there is a showing that the municipality acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or arbitrarily and capriciously, in making its determination. See Tex. Parks & Wild.Code Ann. § 26.001(a) (West 2002); Housing Auth. v. Higginbotham, 135 Tex. 158 , 143 S.W.2d 79, 88 (1940); Whittington v. City of Austin, 174 S.W.3d 889, 898 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied); see also Malcomson Rd. Util. Dist. v. Newsom, 171 S.W.3d 257, 268-69 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). Because there has been no such showing in this case, I would affirm the district court’s judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664385. Public record. Not legal advice.