E.B.S. Enterprises v. City of El Paso, No. 8-10-00088-CV (Tx. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2011)
Appellants assert three arguments in contending that the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment. The first contests the relevancy of the City’s secondary effects evidence to enacting four provisions of the ordinance that apply to Appellants. The second complains that there was a genuine issue of material fact. And the third asserts that the ordinance is preempted by a State statute. We find no merit in any of the issues raised . . .