R. L. Baccus v. City Dallas

The question in this case concerns the validity of a rezoning ordinance of the City of Dallas. The proponents and the contestants
both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion of the proponents, City of Dallas, et al., and denied
the motion of the contestants, R. L. Baccus, et ux. The court of civil appeals affirmed. Tex.Civ.App., 450 S.W.2d 389. We agree with the holding of the court of civil appeals that, to prevail in a conventional trial on the merits, the burden
is on a contestant to show that no conclusive or even controversial facts or conditions exist which offer support for action
of a city's governing body in amending a zoning ordinance. See City of Waxahachie v. Watkins, 154 Tex. 206, 275 S.W.2d 477
(1955). A contestant has the same burden when he seeks a summary judgment invalidating an ordinance. However, that is not
the rule for determining whether the proponents of such an ordinance are entitled to a summary judgment sustaining its validity.
In moving for a summary judgment, proponents have the burden of establishing affirmatively by summary judgment proofs that
conditions either conclusively support passage of the ordinance or make that action debatable or issuable. Only thus may the
proponents establish validity of the ordinance as a matter of law as is required by Rule 166-A(c), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.