HowardBorden
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Posts
- 889
The City of Dallas did in fact want Love Field closed to commercial traffic because they had multiple bonds ordinances funding DFW and multiple agreements with other airlines to move their operations out of Love to DFW. The problem however was that the City of Dallas had no authority to do so. In fact it was illegal for Dallas to preclude SWA from using Love field.
Dallas Love Field was and is subject to the same regulations and stipulations put forth by the Federal government when they provide the major funding to build these very expensive facilities. It was found that Dallas had zero authority to oust SWA from Love Field.
546 F.2d 84
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TEXAS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants,
v.
TEXAS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION, Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 75-2539.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Southwest Airlines Co. has returned to the federal courts for the second time in two years to preserve a 1973 judgment in a federal district court. The recurring litigation concerns Southwest's right to continue its air passenger services at Love Field in Dallas, Texas, and to avoid a forced move to the new Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport. The district court granted Southwest a preliminary injunction against relitigation in state court of the issues decided in 1973.
We affirm.
I. FACTS
The cities and the Airport Board then filed the first federal court suit (Southwest I ), requesting a declaratory judgment of their right to exclude Southwest from Love Field. Southwest counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of its right to remain at the field and for an injunction to enforce that right. The TAC intervened as a party-defendant and adopted Southwest's position. On both federal and state law grounds, the district court declared that the cities and the Board could "not lawfully exclude the defendant, Southwest Airlines Co., from the use of Love Field, Dallas, Texas, and its airport facilities so long as Love Field remains open as an airport."
In 1970 eight CAB-certified air lines, appellants in this case, executed letter agreements with the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport Board agreeing to "move all of (their) certified Air Carrier Services serving the Dallas-Fort Worth area to the (new) airport . . . to the extent required under the terms of the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance."
Southwest Airlines began its intrastate commercial air service from Love Field in 1971 under a certificate issued by the Texas Aeronautics Commission (TAC). The certificate authorized service from any airport in the area.
Dallas responded to the district court's judgment by passing a criminal ordinance that levied a two-hundred-dollar fine for each takeoff or landing at Love Field by an airplane of a certified airline. Southwest then brought another suit in federal court (Southwest II ) to enjoin enforcement of that ordinance.
After Southwest moved for summary judgment, however, the district court severed the ordinance dispute from the case and enjoined Dallas from enforcing the ordinance against either Southwest or Braniff.
The federal district court has preliminarily enjoined this "frontal attack", thereby precluding the CAB airlines, the cities, and the airport board: from relitigating in state court . . . or in any other court action the validity, effect or enforceability of the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance of the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth insofar as it may affect the right of plaintiff Southwest Airlines Co. to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. . . .
In Southwest I, however, the federal courts faced an issue of Texas law with a clear answer. The issue concerned the relative authority of the TAC and the City of Dallas to control access to Love Field, and Judge Gee responded: It has a simple answer. In a recent decision, the Texas Supreme Court had occasion to consider the powers of the Texas Aeronautics Commission. . . .
"The decision as to where the public interest lies and what air service is best for Texas must be made by the Texas Aeronautics Commission." . . .
. . . Indeed, to hold that a city could deny the use of public facilities to an airline certificated to it by the Texas Aeronautics Commission would cripple, if not destroy, the Commission's powers to control intrastate routes.
As both the district and circuit opinions explain, to rule otherwise would disregard the plain language of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Municipal Airports Act, the Texas Aeronautics Act, and statutes regulating home rule cities, all of which support TAC authority over the controversy. Because the state law is so clear, the federal courts did not violate any principles of federalism by proceeding to judgment without abstention in Southwest I.
In their attempt to apply the 1968 Bond Ordinance to Southwest, the CAB airlines assume the role of private attorneys-general. In effect, they would enforce the ordinance's phase-out provision by excluding Southwest from Love Field. The City of Dallas has already failed in its attempt to effect such an exclusion. We hold that the carriers should be bound by that failure.
CONCLUSION This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities by the federal judiciary have only generated more suits, appeals, and petitions for rehearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. The narrowly drawn preliminary injunction of the district court correctly protects that right. It does so without violating principles of federalism, the federal law of res judicata, or the dictates of due process.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
The City of Dallas does not get to make it's own laws, they are bound by the same legalities as everyone else. Time and time again SWA has been found to be on the right side of the law. If the City of Dallas dropped the ball in doing their due diligence as to what authorities they had to enforce an evacuation of Love Field, that is no ones fault but their own. Your insinuation that SWA did some underhanded dirty deeds to remain at Love is completely unfounded. Dallas had no legal authority to exclude anyone from the extensively federally funded airport. This has been litigated and re-litigated all with the same results.
