Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 233 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2007, no pet.), the City asserted immunity from suit in response to a breach of contract action filed against it by Clear Channel.

The City argued that the contract was not "properly executed" because it was not signed by the mayor and city controller. Id. at 446.

The City relied on the 1905 City Charter. Id.

This court held that a properly executed contract was established by the combination of (1) the contract document; and (2) the City Council's passage of an accompanying motion that constituted "the last step needed to complete the written contract between the parties." Id.

"The City's contention that the signatures of the mayor and the city controller are required arguably conflates the issue of whether the contract is binding under the charter -- a question that goes to the merits of the case -- with the issue of whether it was properly executed on the City's behalf." Id.