280 S.W. 759, 760-61 (Tex.Com.App.1926) (no ambiguity exists about legislature’s intent to grant exclusive control to incorporated cities over highways within their borders, and this power operates against counties). Because the transportation code defines “highway” as “including] a tolled ... bridge,” we interpret a home-rule city’s “exclusive control” as extending to toll bridges within its borders. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 221.001 (West Supp. 2006); see also City of Houston v. Goings, 795 S.W.2d 829, 882 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. denied) (city was responsible for injury arising from bridge construction because “public bridge forming a connecting link in a [municipal] street or highway is part of that street or highway”); Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. H-936 (1977) (<HOLDING>). This case does not present the first
holding that a city charter is a law under the whistleblower act holding that the city had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute allowing certain communities within the same county as the city to incorporate as towns without the citys consent holding that a city was equitably estopped from denying the accuracy of blueprints and specifications given to a party who had been contracted to build a sewer for the city recognizing even before enactment of statute specifically granting power that homerule city bordering rio grande had authority to build international bridge connecting city with mexico based on citys general rights of selfgovernment as granted in incorporating charter and fact that there had been no expression of legislative intent to limit such power holding that city electors who rendered property to city assessor after time fixed by statute were qualified to vote at city election on issuance of bonds for construction of an electric light and power system