# State v. City of Austin

> Texas Supreme Court · January 6, 1960 · 160 Tex. 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763883

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Texas v. City of Austin, Et Al.; The State of Texas v. City of Dallas, Et Al.
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 6, 1960
- **Citations:** 160 Tex. 348; 3 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 120; 331 S.W.2d 737; 1960 Tex. LEXIS 584
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Smith
- **Judges:** Walker, Smith
- **Cited by:** 221 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/9763883

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that absent the State’s assumption of part of the expense, utility owners bear the financial burden of relocating facilities on public rights-of-way
- holding that utilities could be required to pay relocation costs from public rights-of-way "whenever such relocation is made necessary by highway improvements"
- stating that revenues received under article VIII, section 7-a may be used only for purposes designated in that provision

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Smith,
on motion for rehearing.
On January 6, 1960, this court rendered its opinion in the above case. The opinion contained the following language:
“It should be noted, however, that if the relocated lines are placed on right of way owned by the utility, the cost of acquiring said right of way is not properly attributable to such relocation within the meaning of the Act. If the State should pay this cost, it would be in the position of buying for the utility that which it would be required to take under the power of eminent domain in the event the land where the relocated lines are placed were ever needed for a different and superior public use. This would be an unconstitutional gift for a private purpose, and the statute should, if reasonably possible, be given a construction that will not render it invalid.”
On February 16, 1960, the State’s motion came on for consideration by the court, and the motion for rehearing was overruled, after the above quoted language had been amended by inserting the words “which will be” between the words “way” and “owned.”
Regardless of whether the quoted language before amendment or after amendment is ambiguous, it is my position that the entire holding is dictum, wholly unnecessary to a decision of the issues involved in this case and should be deleted. The question should not have been injected into this case, but should have been left for decision, if properly raised, in some future case.
The opinion should be modified to the extent herein suggested, and the motion for rehearing, should be overruled.
Opinion, delivered February 17, 1960.
Rehearing overruled February 17, 1960.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763883. Public record. Not legal advice.