# Bartlett v. City of Corpus Christi

> Court of Appeals of Texas · May 16, 1962 · 359 S.W.2d 122

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772673

## Case

- **Full name:** R. L. BARTLETT, Appellant, v. CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 16, 1962
- **Citations:** 359 S.W.2d 122; 1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 2611
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Fraser
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9772673

## Opinion text

On Motion for Rehearing
Both parties to this controversy have filed motions for rehearing, charging that our holding that this case should be returned for further development was in error.
On the basis of the authorities cited and our previous reasoning, we are still of the opinion that this case should be returned to the trial court for further development and elicitation.
The appellant urges that the trial court had no jurisdiction because the matter had been disposed of within the framework of the City administration, and no appeal therefrom had been perfected. The City responds by admitting that it has made a collateral attack on the cease and desist order and the action thereon by the City authorities, and defends such attack on the ground that the action of the various City boards in effect created a completely new use, rather than a variance or regulation use already in effect. The City urges that the action of the Board of Adjustment usurped the legislative power of the City itself, and in effect created or granted a completely new use, rather than passing upon a regulation. The appellant, of course, continues to maintain that the District Court had no right to render summary judgment because it had no jurisdiction by virtue of the matter having become final because the City did not appeal from the ruling of its own Board.
So again, we say that this entire controversy and the arguments of both parties de *126 pend entirely on the nature of the business that Bartlett, ■ the appellant, was conducting. Only when this matter is sufficiently developed can the courts make an intelligent disposition or determination of the lawsuit, because the nature of his activity or business determines whether or not he comes under the zoning provision involved herein, and also is determinative of whether it is a matter that can be decided by a Board of Adjustment, or one— as the City urges — that is concerned with the creation or granting of a new use entirely.
For these reasons the motions of both parties for rehearing are accordingly overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772673. Public record. Not legal advice.