Donovan v. City Of Dallas

377 U.S. 408 (1964)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The city of Dallas, Texas owns Love Field, a municipal airport. In 1961, 46 citizens who had property near the airport filed a class suit in Texas State court to restrain the city from building an additional runway. Their complaint alleged many damages, but the case was tried, and summary judgment was given the city. The Texas court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Texas denied review and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Later, 120 citizens, including the 27 from the prior suit, filed an action in U.S. District Court seeking similar relief. A number of new defendants were named besides the city and injunctions were asked against the issuance of bonds, payment on bonds already issued, and the construction of the runway. Under Texas law, no bonds could be issued so long as there was pending litigation. The City (D) filed a motion to dismiss and an answer to the complaint. D also filed a writ of prohibition to the Texas Court of Appeals to bar all Ps in the case from prosecuting the case. That court denied the writ and cited the fact that D could raise the defense of res judicata in the federal action. On a petition for mandamus, the Supreme Court of Texas held that it was the duty of the state court to prohibit Ps’ prosecution in federal court and that it would issue a writ of mandamus if the court did not do its duty. The writ was issued, and the District Court dismissed the case. An appeal was filed to the 5th Circuit. The Texas court then held them in contempt, and jail time was imposed, and fines were levied. Ps then appeared before the United States Court of Appeals and motioned to dismiss their appeal stating that they were under duress and that unless the motion was made, they would be subject to further prosecution and additional penalties. The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari to review the District Court dismissal and the Court of Appeals dismissal but did grant certiorari to review the State Supreme Court ruling directing that Ps be enjoined and also reviewed the judgment of contempt.