Can a Texas county change the name of a county road that already has a name?

Plain-English summary

A Callahan County resident petitioned the commissioners court to change the name of Hays Road to Dugan Road. The county had no record in its minutes of ever formally adopting the name "Hays Road," so it apparently became the name through common usage; it shows up that way on the county's 9-1-1 maps, in postal addresses, and on interstate exit signs. The county attorney asked the Attorney General whether the commissioners court had authority to rename a county road that already carried a name, including one established only by usage.

The Attorney General concluded that it did. Transportation Code section 251.013 lets a commissioners court name public roads located wholly or partly in the unincorporated areas of the county, and the authority to name a public road has been construed to include the authority to change its name. The opinion identified two routes: under subsection (a), the court can adopt uniform naming standards and apply them to the road, and under subsection (b), a separate grant of authority that does not depend on adopting any standards, the court can simply name (or rename) a county road as the occasion arises. The fact that "Hays Road" arose by common usage rather than a formal order did not block a change.

Either way, the opinion stressed the procedure. Subsection (d) requires the court to act by order and only after holding a public hearing, with public notice given at least two weeks before the hearing. The opinion noted that a municipal ordinance prevails over a conflicting county order within the city's territory (subsection (c)), and that the court's naming decision is subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

County commissioners courts (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that the section 251.013 power to name roads in unincorporated areas includes renaming a road that already has a name, including one set by common usage, exercised either by adopting and applying uniform standards (subsection (a)) or by direct order under subsection (b).

County attorneys and county staff (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that any rename must be done by order and only after a public hearing noticed at least two weeks ahead (subsection (d)), and remains reviewable by a court for abuse of discretion.

Residents and petitioners (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that a road name arising from common usage can be changed by the commissioners court through the statutory process, so a petition like the Hays-to-Dugan request can be acted on once the hearing requirement is met.

Common questions

Can a Texas county rename a road that already has a name?
Under this opinion, yes. The commissioners court's authority to name public roads in unincorporated areas under section 251.013 includes the authority to change an existing name.

Does it matter that the road name came from common usage, not a formal order?
No. The opinion concluded the court can rename the road even though the existing name was never formally adopted and apparently came into use through common usage.

What steps does the county have to follow to rename a road?
The court must act by order and only after a public hearing, with public notice given at least two weeks before the hearing, as subsection (d) requires.

Can a renamed road decision be challenged?
Yes. The opinion noted that the action of naming or renaming a county road is subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion.

Background and statutory framework

Transportation Code section 251.013 addresses the naming of county roads. Subsection (a) lets a commissioners court adopt uniform standards for naming public roads located wholly or partly in unincorporated areas and assigning address numbers, with the standards applying to new public roads. Subsection (b), which the opinion described as a separate grant of authority not contingent on adopting standards under subsection (a), lets the court adopt a name for such a road and assign address numbers where no established address system exists. Subsection (c) provides that a conflicting municipal ordinance prevails within the city's territory, and subsection (d) requires the court to act only after a public hearing, with notice at least two weeks before the hearing.

Reading the power to name as including the power to rename, the opinion cited out-of-state authority, Goodman v. City of Atlanta, Brown v. City of Topeka, and Belden v. City of Niagara Falls, and noted (citing Goodman) that the action is reviewable for abuse of discretion. It cited City of Austin v. Findlay for the related point that, on that case's facts, a street-name change was a legislative action that had to be done by ordinance rather than a mere council motion, reinforcing that the county must proceed by order.

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 251.013(a), (b), (c), (d) (Vernon 1999)

Cases:

• Goodman v. City of Atlanta, 268 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. 1980)
• Brown v. City of Topeka, 74 P.2d 142 (Kan. 1937)
• Belden v. City of Niagara Falls, 245 N.Y.S. 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)
• City of Austin v. Findlay, 538 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1976, no writ)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0301
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2000/jc0301.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official scanned PDF. Minor character-level errors from the source OCR have been corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS

JOHN CORNYN

November 2, 2000

The Honorable Allen Wright
Callahan County Attorney
100 West 4th Street, Suite 202
Baird, Texas 79504

Opinion No. JC-0301

Re: Whether a commissioners court may change the name of a county road (RQ-0237-JC)

Dear Mr. Wright:

You ask whether a county commissioners court has authority to change the name of a county road once a name has already been established. A commissioners court has authority under section 251.013 of the Transportation Code to name and rename public roads located wholly or partly in unincorporated areas of the county.

You inform us that the Commissioners Court of Callahan County received a petition requesting the Court to change the name of Hays Road to Dugan Road and has deferred final action on this matter to seek legal advice.[1] You have searched the Commissioners Court's minutes without locating any reference to the Court having adopted the name Hays Road for this road and have otherwise been unable to determine how the road acquired this name, except possibly by common usage. Request Letter, note 1, at 2. The road is shown on county 9-1-1 maps as Hays Road, the post office has recorded mailing addresses on Hays Road, and the Texas Department of Transportation has posted exit signs on the interstate referring to Hays Road. Id. You ask whether the commissioners court of a county has authority to change the name of a county or public road once a name has already been adopted or established by common usage.

Section 251.013 of the Texas Transportation Code expressly addresses the naming of county roads. This statute provides as follows:

(a) The commissioners court of a county by order may adopt uniform standards for naming public roads located wholly or partly in unincorporated areas of the county and for assigning address numbers to property located in unincorporated areas of the county. The standards apply to any new public road that is established.

(b) The commissioners court of a county by order may adopt a name for a public road located wholly or partly in an unincorporated area of the county and may assign address numbers to property located in an unincorporated area of the county for which there is no established address system.

(c) If an order adopted under this section conflicts with a municipal ordinance, the municipal ordinance prevails in the territory in which it is effective.

(d) A commissioners court may adopt an order under this section only after conducting a public hearing on the proposed order. The court shall give public notice of the hearing at least two weeks before the date of the hearing.

TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 251.013 (Vernon 1999).

Section 251.013(a) of the Transportation Code authorizes a commissioners court to adopt uniform standards for naming public roads located in unincorporated areas of the county and requires it to apply these standards to new public roads. Section 251.013(b), a separate grant of authority that is not made contingent on adopting uniform standards under section 251.013(a), authorizes a commissioners court to name a county road. Thus, a county may name a public road either by adopting uniform standards under subsection 251.013(a) and applying them to the individual road or by exercising its power under subsection 251.013(b) to name county roads as the occasion arises. The authority of a political subdivision to name a public road has been construed to include the authority to change its name. See generally Goodman v. City of Atlanta, 268 S.E.2d 663, 665 (Ga. 1980); Brown v. City of Topeka, 74 P.2d 142 (Kan. 1937); Belden v. City of Niagara Falls, 245 N.Y.S. 510, 512-13 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930). The Callahan County Commissioners Court may act under subsection 251.013(a) by adopting uniform standards for naming county roads and applying them to the Hays Road, or it may act under subsection 251.013(b) to rename the Hays Road. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 251.013(a), (b) (Vernon 1999).

In either case, the commissioners court may act only by adopting an order and only after conducting a public hearing on the proposed order as required by subsection 251.013(d) of the Transportation Code. Cf. City of Austin v. Findlay, 538 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1976, no writ) (under facts of case, change of street name was legislative action required to be effected by ordinance, not motion of city council). The action of the commissioners court in naming a county road is subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion. See generally Goodman, 268 S.E.2d at 665.

SUMMARY

The authority of a commissioners court to name public roads under section 251.013 of the Transportation Code includes the authority to rename a public road. Callahan County may exercise its authority under subsection 251.013(b) of the Transportation Code to rename a county road by order, after conducting a public hearing, without adopting uniform standards for naming county roads under subsection 251.013(a). The action of renaming a county road is subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion.

JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

ANDY TAYLOR
First Assistant Attorney General

CLARK KENT ERVIN
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

SUSAN D. GUSKY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Allen Wright, Callahan County Attorney, to Honorable John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General (June 1, 2000) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter].