Is the following statement true: Municipal courts of record in home-rule cities have some jurisdiction over city ordinance offenses which abate nuisances that occur within any part of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city?

Is the following statement true: Municipal courts of record in home-rule cities have some jurisdiction over city ordinance offenses which abate nuisances that occur within any part of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city?

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Not specified
• D. Depends

Answer: (A)

In a home-rule city, the authority to regulate nuisances extends into the extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the city’s municipal court of record handles prosecutions for violations of city ordinances, including those aimed at abating nuisances that occur within any part of the ETJ. Because nuisance-abatement ordinances are city ordinances, offenses arising from nuisances within the city’s ETJ fall within the court’s jurisdiction to try. This is true for home-rule cities, where the regulatory power is broader and not limited to the city’s core limits. So the statement is correct: municipal courts of record in home-rule cities do have some jurisdiction over city ordinance offenses that abate nuisances in the ETJ.

In a home-rule city, the authority to regulate nuisances extends into the extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the city’s municipal court of record handles prosecutions for violations of city ordinances, including those aimed at abating nuisances that occur within any part of the ETJ. Because nuisance-abatement ordinances are city ordinances, offenses arising from nuisances within the city’s ETJ fall within the court’s jurisdiction to try. This is true for home-rule cities, where the regulatory power is broader and not limited to the city’s core limits. So the statement is correct: municipal courts of record in home-rule cities do have some jurisdiction over city ordinance offenses that abate nuisances in the ETJ.