427 S.W.3d 547
Tex. App.2014Background
- DFW Airport Board is a joint board created by Dallas and Fort Worth to operate DFW Airport; its members are appointed by the two city councils.
- In 2009 the Board issued the First CNG Policy granting head-of-the-line taxi privileges to CNG-powered cabs; Association sued to void it.
- A trial court judgment in the First Case voided the First CNG Policy and denied declaratory relief; later nunc pro tunc judgment reaffirmed voidness and denied injunctive relief.
- In 2012 the Board enacted the Second CNG Policy granting head-of-the-line privileges to CNG taxis; Association challenged again.
- The trial court voided the Second CNG Policy, awarded fees to Association, and denied permanent injunction; on appeal, issues focus on authority under Chapter 22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to pass Second CNG Policy | Association: Board lacked authority to adopt second policy. | Board: Chapter 22 grants exclusive operating power to the Board. | Board had authority under §22.074; Second CNG Policy valid. |
| Need for city approvals before Board acts | Association: Board must obtain Dallas/Fort Worth approval for airport-management decisions. | Board: as exclusive operator of DFW, no separate city approvals required. | No city approvals required; Board has exclusive power. |
| Whether Second CNG Policy was necessary to manage the airport | Association: policy not necessary to manage, govern, or use DFW. | Board: policy authorized under exclusive operating powers. | We need not decide necessity; authority exists under §22.074. |
| Collateral estoppel impact from First Case | Association: First Case rulings preclude Second Case review. | Board: collateral estoppel does not bar later challenges on new policy. | Collateral estoppel does not preclude review of the Second Case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas/Fort Worth Intl Airport Bd. v. Funderburk, 188 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (exclusive power of joint boards when constituent cities are populous home-rule municipalities)
- Pratt-Shaw v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 122 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (statutory construction and ordinary dictionary meaning considered)
- Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2009) (precedent on attorney’s fees when prevailing party changes on appeal)
- LG Ins. Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Leick, 378 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (reconsideration of attorney’s fees when party’s status changes)
- Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2001) (collateral estoppel framework)
- First Nat. Collection Bureau, Inc. v. Walker, 348 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (statutory construction; de novo review)