Note:
Larry D. Carlson, Municipal Corporations—Estoppel—Municipality May Be Estopped from Asserting Noncompliance with Notice-of-Claim Provision by Conduct of Agent Without Express Authority. Roberts v. Haltom City, 543 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. 1976), 55 TEXAS L. REV. 739 (1976).
 

Abstract:
This note examines the decision of the court of civil appeals in Roberts, in which the court held that a city may be estopped by the conduct of its officials from relying on the defense of lack of notice, even though the officials lack express authority to waive the notice requirement. Mr. Carlson argues that the demise of the rule requiring express authority is consonant with considerations of fairness and justness, which are equitable concerns relevant to a claim of estoppel. Application of the rule requiring express authority often produced harsh results insofar as it barred tort plaintiffs from suit because of the misconduct of city officials who had actual knowledge of the claim. According to Mr. Carlson, this new rule avoids this injustice, and the requirements of the doctrines of estoppel and apparent authority give the lower courts sufficient flexibility to protect the interest of municipalities in having prompt actual notice of potential claims.