Withstanding Legal Attacks on Annexation
|
|
- Myrtle Harvey
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Withstanding Legal Attacks on Annexation By Brad Young 1 Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP May 13, 2016 In order to weather a legal challenge to your annexation, it is important to anticipate the types of annexation arguments that a plaintiff may raise. That way, you can be proactive and structure your annexation in a way that maximizes your ability to withstand an annexation challenge. A. Void or Voidable? In assessing a private party s standing to challenge an annexation, the court must decide whether the challenge relates to the city s underlying authority to annex or simply complains of a failure to follow the statutory procedure. A mere irregularity in the city s exercise of its annexation authority is not sufficient to cloak the party with standing. See Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin, 825 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Tex. 1991). Rather, a collateral attack by a private party must show an entire want of power on the part of the city to annex. See Hoffman v. Elliott, 476 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Tex. 1972) (an annexation that is not authorized by law or color of law is wholly void); Larkins v. City of Denison, 683 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex. App. Dallas 1984, no writ) (an annexation that exceeds the scope of a municipality s delegated powers is void); City of Houston v. Harris Co. Eastex Oaks Water & Sewer Dist., 438 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston [1 st Dist.] 1969, writ ref d n.r.e) (an act of annexation that is wholly beyond the powers of the municipality is void). If an annexation ordinance is voidable rather than void, the complaint must be brought by the State in a quo warranto action. 1. Void Ordinances Historically, Texas courts have held an annexation ordinance void when the annexation: (1) exceeds the statutory size limits; (2) attempts to annex areas within another city s jurisdiction; (3) attempts to annex areas not contiguous with city limits; or (4) attempts to annex an area with an open boundary description. See Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin, 825 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Tex. 1992); see also Werthmann v. City of Fort Worth, 121 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); City of Wichita Falls v. Pearce, 33 S.W.3d 415, 417 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). 1 Brad Young is a partner with Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP. He provides litigation and general counsel services to cities in land use, open government, employment, constitutional rights, and general civil matters. He represents clients before state, federal and municipal courts. Brad received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2000 and his B.A. from Lyon College (Batesville, Arkansas) in His contact information is Brad Young, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, 3711 S. MoPac Expressway, Building One, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78746, (512) , (512) FAX, byoung@bickerstaff.com Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 1
2 a. Annexation that Exceeds Statutory Size Limits Texas courts have found annexations void for exceeding the statutory size limits in the following situations: (1) the city impermissibly annexed territory beyond its ETJ; (2) a general law city annexed territory that exceeded the total square mile limitation established for such general law city; or (3) the city annexed territory that exceeded the ten percent area limitation established by the statute. See, e.g., TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE ( A municipality may annex area only in its extraterritorial jurisdiction unless the municipality owns the area. ); Deacon v. City of Euless, 405 S.W.2d 59, 64 (Tex. 1966) (annexation void if territory exceeds the ten percent area limitation); City of Burleson v. Bartula, 110 S.W.3d 561, 563 (Tex. App. Waco 2003, no pet.) (annexation ordinance void if some of property is outside ETJ); City of Wilmer v. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., 890 S.W.2d 459, 466 (Tex. App. Dallas 1994), aff d, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (annexation impact on size limits of general law city); City of Northlake v. East Justin Joint Venture, 873 S.W.2d 413, (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1994, writ denied) (annexation impact on size limits of general law city). TIP: Use your City Engineer and GIS Personnel to make sure that the area that you are annexing: (1) is in your current ETJ; and (2) does not exceed the 10 % statutory max for annexation. b. Annexation in Another City s Jurisdiction Attempts to annex within another city s jurisdiction include situations where a city tries to annex property within the corporate limits of another city, as well as attempts to annex property within the ETJ of another city. See, e.g., City of Waco v. City of McGregor, 523 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tex. 1975) (annexation void because city annexed property in another city s ETJ); City of Irving v. Callaway, 363 S.W.2d 832, (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1963, writ ref d n.r.e) (annexation void because city tried to annex property in another city s corporate limits). TIP: Before you annex, obtain the most up-to-date maps you can from your neighboring cities to make sure that you do not encroach on someone else s city limits or ETJ. c. Annexations that are Not Contiguous Historically, Texas courts have held an annexation ordinance void when the annexation attempts to annex areas that are not contiguous with city limits. Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin, 825 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Tex. 1992); see also Werthmann v. City of Fort Worth, 121 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); City of Wichita Falls v. Pearce, 33 S.W.3d 415, 417 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). Contiguous means touching upon or touching one another. Op. Tex. Att y Gen. No. GA-0014 (2003). In other words, contiguity anticipates that there be actual contact or uninterrupted connection between the entity and the territory it is annexing. TIP: Make sure that the area that you annex is contiguous to the current city limits. If not, see if there is a way to bridge the gap between your current limits and the proposed area Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 2
3 d. Annexations with an Open Boundary Description An annexation ordinance that contains an open boundary description after employing standard rules of construction and surveying practices is void. See State ex rel. Rose v. City of La Porte, 386 S.W.2d 782, (Tex. 1965). In general, municipal boundary descriptions are to be construed more liberally than those contained in grants or contracts so that if the description in [an annexation ordinance] cannot be literally applied on account of inaccuracy, a reasonable construction is to be made of the whole ordinance provisions in order to carry into effect the intent of the body which enacted it. Id. (citing State ex rel. American Manufacturing Co. v. City of Fort Worth, 339 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1960, writ ref d n.r.e.)). Some examples of situations in which a court might use rules of construction or surveying practices to construe the intent of the governing body and close the boundary include: Where the gap can be closed by running the call in reverse, a court might close the boundary. See id. at 787. Where an ordinance contains incorrect distance calls but the property descriptions also contain easily identifiable monuments and natural objects, a court might close the boundary. Id. at 788. Where a junior survey calls to begin at a senior, the junior beginning where the senior line is established, the distance and acreage of the junior survey must yield, since a call for adjoinder is like a call for natural or artificial objects. State ex rel. American manufacturing Co. v. City of Fort Worth, 339 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1960, writ ref d n.r.e.). Maps body s 204 (Tex. published intent. Civ. See, App. San in conjunction e.g., Lower Antonio with Nueces 1955, the River annexation writ ref d Water n.r.e.). ordinance Supply Dist. may v. Cartwright, be evidence 274 of the S.W.2d governing 199, This does not mean that an inadvertently omitted call can simply be added through, for example, (1) testimony that the governing body intended the call to be included or (2) the examination of deed records not referenced in the ordinance. State ex rel Rose, 386 S.W.2d at 788; City of Missouri City v. Senior, 583 S.W.2d 444, 448 (Tex. App. Houston [1 st Dist.] 1979, writ ref d n.r.e.). The construction of an ordinance may not change the course of a line in the original field notes or create additional corners or touching points. State ex rel Rose, 386 S.W.2d at 789. The description in the ordinance must be relied upon to the exclusion of extraneous records, unless referred to in the ordinance, or unless a latent ambiguity arises from extraneous facts. Senior, 583 S.W.2d at 448; but see, Grisham v. Tate, 35 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Tex. Civ. App. Waco 1931, writ dism d) (looking to maps with the field notes marked upon them as evidence of intent even though the maps were not published or part of the act of calling the election for creation of a special district). TIP: If you describe the area proposed for annexation by metes and bounds, obtain a sealed survey from a surveyor that you trust Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 3
4 2. Voidable Ordinances Some examples of procedural irregularities that result in a voidable, rather than a void, ordinance include: Failure to have a quorum present at a public hearing. See, e.g., Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin, 825 S.W.2d 434, (Tex. 1992). Mistakes as to description of the property being annexed. See, e.g., May v. City of McKinney, 479 S.W.2d 114, 120 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972, writ ref d n.r.e.). Discrepancies between the property as described in the notice and the property described in the annexation ordinance. See, e.g., City of Houston v. Harris Co. Eastex Oaks Water & Sewer Dist., 438 S.W.2d 941, 948 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston [1 st Dist.] 1969, writ ref d n.r.e.). Irregularities as to the petition, when an election is necessary to undertake the annexation. See, e.g., City of Wilmer v Laidlaw Waste Systems, 890 S.W.2d 459, 464 (Tex. App. Dallas 1994), aff d, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995). Invalid service plan. See, e.g., Wichita Falls v. Pearce, 33 S.W.3d 415, (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). Failure to hear all persons attending public hearing and wanting to speak. See, e.g., City of Houston v. Savely, 708 S.W.2d 879, 889 (Tex. App. Houston [1 st Dist.] 1986, writ ref d n.r.e), cert denied, 482 U.S Failure to comply with statutory annexation plan requirements. See Werthmann v. City of Fort Worth, 121 S.W.3d 803, (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); City of Balch Springs v. Lucas, 101 S.W.3d 116, (Tex. App. Dallas 2002, mand. denied). City of San Antonio v. Hardee 70 S.W.3d 207, (Tex. App. San Antonio 2001, no pet.). TIP: Check and double-check your annexation calendar to make sure that you have properly scheduled all newspaper notices, public hearings, etc. B. Let the City Council Vote! Generally, a court will not invade the legislative arena by enjoining a city council from voting on a proposed annexation ordinance. City of Monahans v. State ex. rel. Cook, 348 S.W.2d 176, 179 (Tex. Civ. App. El Paso, writ ref d n.r.e.) stands for the general proposition that under the separation of powers doctrine, a court may not enjoin a home rule city from performing the legislative act of adopting an ordinance. Once the ordinance has been adopted, though, a plaintiff can sue to enjoin its enforcement. Texas courts have the authority to enjoin the enforcement of an invalid ordinance: 2016 Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 4
5 There is no doubt that the courts, pursuant to their judicial power, can give relief from an arbitrary, oppressive, or unconstitutional ordinance through an action in quo warranto brought for the purpose of enjoining the enforcement of such ordinance. This would constitute a legitimate exercise of judicial power. City of Monahans v. State ex. rel. Cook, 348 S.W.2d 176, 179 (Tex. Civ. App. El Paso, writ ref d n.r.e.) (emphasis in original). C. Arbitration. Some provisions of Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code provide for arbitration of annexation disputes between cities and property owners. For example, section (i) provides that if a property owner feels that a city has improperly attempted to circumvent the 3-year annexation plan requirement by separately annexing areas with fewer than 100 rooftops, the property owner can request arbitration of the dispute. TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE (i). In City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008), the property owner did just that, but the city council declined to grant the request. The property owner then sued the city to compel arbitration. The Texas Supreme Court held that once a group of landowners has submitted a petition to be included in a 3-year annexation plan and the city has denied the petition, the landowners' only recourse is to persuade the State to file a suit against the City through quo warranto. City of Rockwall stands for the proposition that arbitration provisions such as the one under section (i) are procedural annexation requirements that only can be challenged through a quo warranto proceeding. D. Statute of Limitations Annexations have their own special statute of limitations under section of the Texas Local Government Code, which provides: Circumstances in Which Consent to Boundaries or Annexation is Presumed A municipal ordinance defining boundaries of or annexing area to a municipality is conclusively presumed to have been adopted with the consent of all appropriate persons, except another municipality, 2 if: (1) two years have expired after the date of the adoption of the ordinance; and 2 The except another municipality clause only applies to an annexation ordinance that took effect on or after September 1, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 5
6 TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE (2) an action to annul or review the adoption of the ordinance has not been initiated in that two-year period. The Texas Supreme Court has construed section as a statute of limitations that bars a suit to challenge an annexation ordinance based on lack of consent. City of Murphy v. City of Parker, 932 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. 1996). City of Murphy involved an annexation dispute between two neighboring cities. In City of Murphy, the Supreme Court addressed the specific question of whether section bars a municipality s suit complaining of a nonconsensual annexation of land within its extraterritorial jurisdiction when it fails to challenge the annexation within two years. City of Murphy, 932 S.W.2d at 480 (emphasis added). At issue was the City of Parker s annexation of territory that was indisputably within the City of Murphy s ETJ. Id. Murphy challenged Parker s annexation on the grounds that Parker did not obtain Murphy s written consent to the annexation and that Parker illegally annexed territories outside of Parker s ETJ (because the disputed territories were in Murphy s ETJ). Id. Murphy argued that it did not provide actual consent to the annexation and that a municipality was not an appropriate person whose consent could be presumed under section of the Local Government Code. Id. at 481. The Supreme Court disagreed, relying upon the Code Construction Act to determine that the term person, as used in section , did include municipalities. Thus, the Court held that the plain language of section erects a complete statutory bar to any challenge of a municipality s annexation ordinance based on lack of consent. Id. The Court further found that Murphy s argument that Parker unlawfully annexed outside of Parker s ETJ into Murphy s ETJ was merely an extension of its consent argument, because Murphy had the statutory authority to consent to allow Parker to annex into its territory. City of Murphy, 932 S.W.2d at 482 (citing TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE ). Therefore, the court summarized that the essence of Murphy s complaint is that Parker failed to obtain the requisite consent to the annexation, consent that is conclusively presumed to have been given after the expiration of two years under section Id. at 482. In City of San Juan v. City of Pharr, the court of appeals held that even if section barred a suit by a municipality to challenge a neighboring municipality s annexation, that section did not prevent the plaintiff from challenging the expansion of its neighbor s ETJ as a result of the otherwise void annexation. City of San Juan v. City of Pharr, No CV, 2011 WL (Tex. App. Corpus Christi, May 26, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The court of appeals held: We believe that [the former version of section , City of Murphy, and its progeny] stand for the proposition that a city's annexation i.e., the expansion of the city's city limits into another city's existing ETJ is conclusively presumed to be valid absent any action by the other city to challenge the annexation within two years.... However, by its second issue, San Juan asks us to enlarge this presumption, and resulting limitations bar, to an annexation ordinance's expansion of the annexing city's ETJ. We will not do so, as the statutory scheme governing ETJ discourages such a result Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 6
7 Id. at *7. The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for review. In 2007, the Legislature amended section to provide that the two-year limitation period does not apply to a challenge by another city to an annexation that took place after September 1, D. Annexation Challenges Under the Texas Open Meetings Act? Sometimes, an annexation may be subject to challenge under the Texas Open Meetings Act. For example, the Open Meetings Act contains notice requirements with which a municipality must comply. TEX. GOV T CODE et seq. Generally, the notice must be sufficient to apprise the general public of the subjects to be considered during the meeting. KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, 2016 OPEN MEETINGS HANDBOOK VII(B) (2016). Information in a notice that is false or inaccurate is in violation of the Act. See Op. Tex. Att y Gen. No. JC (2000) (determining that a misleading notice of a three percent raise for county officials that did not fully disclose an intent to raise salaries by six times that amount was no notice. ). Although it is not necessary that the notice state all of the consequences that may flow from the consideration of a topic, the notice must give the reader a full and adequate notice of the subject slated for discussion, particularly where the matter is one of special interest. Cox Enterps., Inc. v. Bd. Of Trustees of the Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956, (Tex. 1986). Thus, a notice posted by a school district s board of trustees that simply read, Personnel, was inadequate to inform the public that the board was going to select a new school superintendent. Id. A notice posted by a water district that simply read, Budget, was inadequate to inform the public that the district s board would consider and vote on a tax levy. Parr v. State, 743 S.W.2d 268, 272 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1987, writ denied). And a series of thirty-four separate meeting notices, all indicating separate meetings on the same date, and each of which identified a single annexation, did not give a member of the public sufficient notice that the city council was going to consider seventeen sequential annexations. See City of Port Isabel v. Pinnell, 207 S.W.3d 394, (Tex. App. Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2006, no pet.) (trial court s findings of fact). The statute of limitations for a cause of action pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act is the residual four-year limitations period under section of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ; Rivera v. City of Laredo, 948 S.W.2d 787, 793 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, writ denied). TIP: In the event that you plan to annex successive, contiguous tracts of land in a compressed time period, schedule each annexation at least 72 hours apart at separate meetings under the Open Meetings Act. E. Conclusion The Texas annexation laws contain various procedural requirements and limitations on municipal annexation authority that can become traps for the unwary city. With a little careful planning, however, a city can structure its annexations to withstand potential legal challenges Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 7
COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-08-00105-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG RYAN SERVICES, INCORPORATED AND TIMOTHY RYAN, Appellants, v. PHILLIP SPENRATH, ED ERWIN, KENNY MARTIN, ROBERT
More informationANNEXATION LITIGATION: THE MUNICIPAL PERSPECTIVE
ANNEXATION LITIGATION: THE MUNICIPAL PERSPECTIVE ROBERT F. BROWN Brown & Hofmeister, L.L.P. 740 East Campbell Road Suite 800 Richardson, Texas 75081 (214) 747-6130 www.bhlaw.net e-mail: rbrown@bhlaw.net
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS. On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
NUMBER 13-09-00422-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG CITY OF SAN JUAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF PHARR, Appellee. On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0047 444444444444 ALLEN MARK DACUS, ELIZABETH C. PEREZ, AND REV. ROBERT JEFFERSON, PETITIONERS, v. ANNISE D. PARKER AND CITY OF HOUSTON, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNCTION OF ALBERTO OCEGUEDA, A/K/A, ALBERTO OSEGUEDA. No. 08-08-00283-CV Appeal from the 346th District Court of El Paso
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00133-CV ROMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant v. Noelia M. GUILLEN, Raul Moreno, Dagoberto Salinas, and Tony Saenz, Appellees
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03 0831 444444444444 YUSUF SULTAN, D/B/A U.S. CARPET AND FLOORS, PETITIONER v. SAVIO MATHEW, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
NO. 07-08-0292-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CYNTHIA RUDNICK HUGHES AND RODNEY FANE HUGHES FROM THE 16TH
More informationTEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT: UPDATE 2017 NORTH AND EAST TEXAS COUNTY JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE MAY 17, 2017 BEAUMONT, TEXAS
TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT: UPDATE 2017 NORTH AND EAST TEXAS COUNTY JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE MAY 17, 2017 BEAUMONT, TEXAS Charles R. Kimbrough and Joshua Katz Bickerstaff Heath
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued September 20, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00836-CV GORDON R. GOSS, Appellant V. THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellee On Appeal from the 270th District
More informationDouble Trouble: When School Board Trustees Hold More Than One Public Office
Double Trouble: When School Board Trustees Hold More Than One Public Office I would like to be the new sheriff in town, but I am currently a school board trustee. May I hold both public offices simultaneously?
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 18, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-17-00476-CV BRIAN A. WILLIAMS, Appellant V. DEVINAH FINN, Appellee On Appeal from the 257th District Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 17-0198 WASSON INTERESTS, LTD., PETITIONER, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, TEXAS, RESPONDENT ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
More informationOPINION. No CV. Matthew COOKE, President, and Alice Police Officers Association, on behalf of similarly situated officers, Appellants
OPINION No. Matthew COOKE, President, and Alice Police Officers Association, on behalf of similarly situated officers, Appellants v. CITY OF ALICE, Appellee From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells
More informationOPINION. No CV. MILESTONE POTRANCO DEVELOPMENT, LTD., Appellant. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Appellee
OPINION No. 04-08-00479-CV MILESTONE POTRANCO DEVELOPMENT, LTD., Appellant v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Appellee From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CI-05559 Honorable
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed October 15, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00823-CV TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND TED HOUGHTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
More informationOpen Meetings Act Meeting Notice
Open Meetings Act Meeting Notice Q: What should a meeting notice contain in order to comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act? A: The Texas Open Meetings Act ( OMA or the Act ), Chapter 551 of the Texas
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued December 6, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00877-CV THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant V. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE, Appellee
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued December 23, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00957-CV IN RE DAVID A. CHAUMETTE, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus O
More informationNO CV. IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * * NO.
Opinion issued December 10, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-00769-CV IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * *
More informationOPINION. No CV. CITY OF LAREDO, Appellant. Homero MOJICA and International Association of Firefighters Local 1390, Appellees
OPINION No. CITY OF LAREDO, Appellant v. Homero MOJICA and International Association of Firefighters Local 1390, Appellees From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-CVQ-000755-D2
More informationSTATE OF TEXAS PETITION IN INTERVENTION. The State of Texas files this Petition in Intervention pursuant to
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-15-003492 CITY OF AUSTIN IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS OWNERS WHO OWN C1 VACANT LAND OR F1 COMMERCIAL
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-17-00447-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG COUNTY OF HIDALGO, Appellant, v. MARY ALICE PALACIOS Appellee. On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-175-CV ANNE BOENIG APPELLANT V. STARNAIR, INC. APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 393RD DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY ------------ OPINION ------------
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00455-CV Canario s, Inc., Appellant v. City of Austin, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-13-003779,
More informationUnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk
12/10/2018 4:58 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29636509 By: LISA COOPER Filed: 12/10/2018 4:58 PM THE HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS UNION, v. Plaintiff, HOUSTON PROFESSIONAL FIRE
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00197-CV City of Garden Ridge, Texas, Appellant v. Curtis Ray, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C-2004-1131A,
More informationTEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT LAWS MADE EASY
TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT LAWS MADE EASY 2017 Editor Zindia Thomas Assistant General Counsel Texas Municipal League www.tml.org Updated August 2017 The Texas Open Meetings Act Made Easy The Open Meeting
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00146-CV ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC. APPELLANT V. THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL
More informationTexas Courts Split On Certificate Of Merit
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Texas Courts Split On Certificate Of Merit Law360,
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION. No CV. KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00105-CV KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant v. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-CVQ-001710-D3
More informationEnforcement of Judgments Against Local Government A Practical Guide to Collecting from Local Sovereigns
Enforcement of Judgments Against Local Government A Practical Guide to Collecting from Local Sovereigns P. Michael Jung, Strasburger & Price, LLP Dallas Bar Association Governmental Law Section November
More informationASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING PRIVILEGES UNDER THE NEW RULES OF DISCOVERY
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW FOUNDATION CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION ADVANCED CIVIL DISCOVERY UNDER THE NEW RULES June 1-2, 2000 Dallas, Texas June 8-9, 2000 Houston, Texas ASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING
More information1 of 1 DOCUMENT. SHERYL JOHNSON-TODD, Appellant V. JOHN S. MORGAN, Appellee NO CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT SHERYL JOHNSON-TODD, Appellant V. JOHN S. MORGAN, Appellee NO. 09-15-00210-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11078 October 29, 2015, Opinion
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
NO. 12-10-00259-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS CITY OF ATHENS, TEXAS, APPEAL FROM THE 392ND APPELLANT V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JAMES MACAVOY, APPELLEE HENDERSON
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV No CV No CV
Conditionally GRANT in Part; and Opinion Filed May 30, 2017. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00507-CV No. 05-17-00508-CV No. 05-17-00509-CV IN RE WARREN KENNETH PAXTON,
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00608-CV Jeanam Harvey, Appellant v. Michael Wetzel, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 99-13033,
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CV. From the 335th District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 26,407 MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00102-CV THE CITY OF CALDWELL, TEXAS, v. PAUL LILLY, Appellant Appellee From the 335th District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 26,407 MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued June 25, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00909-CV DAVID LANCASTER, Appellant V. BARBARA LANCASTER, Appellee On Appeal from the 280th District Court
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00478-CV City of San Angelo, Appellant v. Terrell Terry Smith, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Appellant s Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Opinion of August 13, 2015 Withdrawn; Reversed and Rendered and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO.
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR.,
NUMBER 13-11-00068-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, Appellants, v. BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR., Appellee. On appeal from the 93rd District
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-15-00055-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG ROSE CRAGO, Appellant, v. JIM KAELIN, Appellee. On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-12-00100-CV LEAH WAGGONER, Appellant V. DANNY JACK SIMS, JR., Appellee On Appeal from the 336th District Court Fannin County,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued February 23, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00163-CV XIANGXIANG TANG, Appellant V. KLAUS WIEGAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 268th District Court
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Affirmed; Opinion Filed November 17, 2017. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01232-CV BRAD HERRIAGE AND LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS INTL., LLC, Appellants V. BNSF LOGISTICS, LLC,
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00242-CV Billy Ross Sims, Appellant v. Jennifer Smith and Celia Turner, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 06-0948 444444444444 CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS, PETITIONER, v. RICHARD SMITH, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-16-00062-CV IN THE ESTATE OF NOBLE RAY PRICE, DECEASED On Appeal from the County Court Titus County, Texas Trial Court No.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS EL PASO COUNTY, Appellant, v. HERLINDA ALVARADO, Appellee. O P I N I O N No. 08-07-00351-CV Appeal from the 327th District Court of El Paso County,
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. Augustine NWABUISI, Rose Nwabuisi, Resource Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Resource Home Health Services, Inc., and Resource Care Corp., Appellants
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 07-0485 444444444444 CITY OF WACO, TEXAS, PETITIONER, v. LARRY KELLEY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 3, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00615-CV MARK SCHWARZ, NEWCASTLE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., NEWCASTLE CAPITAL GROUP, L.L.C.,
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-10-00394-CV BOBIE KENNETH TOWNSEND, Appellant V. MONTGOMERY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee On Appeal from the 359th District Court
More informationContents - Mandamus I. MANDAMUS ACTIONS IN GENERAL...2. A. Nature of Mandamus...2. B. Purpose of Mandamus...2
Mandamus - Table of Contents Contents - Mandamus I. MANDAMUS ACTIONS IN GENERAL...2 A. Nature of Mandamus...2 B. Purpose of Mandamus...2 II. JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY COURT OVER MANDAMUS ACTIONS...2 A.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.W., A CHILD. O P I N I O N No. 08-09-00295-CV Appeal from the 65th District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2008CM2868)
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. D.R. HORTON TEXAS, LTD.
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 10, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01414-CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. D.R. HORTON TEXAS, LTD., Appellee On Appeal from the 116th
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00086-CV Appellant, Cristina L. Treadway// Cross-Appellants, Sheriff James R. Holder and Comal County, Texas v. Appellees, Sheriff James R. Holder
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Reverse and Render; Opinion Filed July 6, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01221-CV THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant V. CHARLES WAYNE
More informationNOTICE OF CLAIM. Co-Author MIKE YANOF Stinnett Thiebaud & Remington, L.L.P.
NOTICE OF CLAIM STAN THIEBAUD Stinnett Thiebaud & Remington, L.L.P. 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 4800 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-954-2200 telephone 214-754-0999 telecopier sthiebaud@strlaw.net www.strlaw.net Co-Author
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-11-00015-CV LARRY SANDERS, Appellant V. DAVID WOOD, D/B/A WOOD ENGINEERING COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court
More informationREVERSE, RENDER, and REMAND, and Opinion Filed July 14, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.
REVERSE, RENDER, and REMAND, and Opinion Filed July 14, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01197-CV WILLIAM B. BLAYLOCK AND ELAINE C. BLAYLOCK, Appellants V. THOMAS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0686 444444444444 TEXAS ADJUTANT GENERAL S OFFICE, PETITIONER, v. MICHELE NGAKOUE, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION
More informationCROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL WITNESS
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW 2013 THE CAR CRASH SEMINAR FROM SIGN-UP TO SETTLEMENT July 25-26, 2013 AT&T Conference Center and Hotel at UT Austin, Texas CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL WITNESS
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
IN RE A PURPORTED LIEN OR CLAIM AGAINST HAI QUANG LA AND THERESA THORN NGUYEN COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00110-CV ---------- FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT
More informationDistrict Court Civil Filing Fees Prepared by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) Effective January 1, 2018
District Court Civil Filing Fees Prepared by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) Effective January 1, 2018 I. Statewide Required Filing Fees (Set Amounts) 1. Clerk s Basic Filing Fee (New Civil Suits)...3
More informationDATE ISSUED: 10/17/ of 4 UPDATE 98 DGBA(LEGAL)-P
(LEGAL) UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TEXAS CONSTITUTION FEDERAL LAWS SECTION 504 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TITLE IX The District shall take no action abridging the freedom of speech or the right of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 05-0855 444444444444 SOUTH TEXAS WATER AUTHORITY A/K/A/ SOUTH TEXAS WATER AUTHORITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. ROMEO L. LOMAS AND
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00409-CV BARBARA LOUISE MORTON D/B/A TIMARRON COLLEGE PREP APPELLANT V. TIMARRON OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 96TH
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 07-1051 444444444444 GALBRAITH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., PETITIONER, v. SAM POCHUCHA AND JEAN POCHUCHA, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00704-CV BILL MILLER BAR-B-Q ENTERPRISES, LTD., Appellant v. Faith Faith H. GONZALES, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 7,
More informationSTATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Greg C. Wilkins Christopher A. McKinney Orgain Bell & Tucker, LLP 470 Orleans Street P.O. Box 1751 Beaumont, TX 77704 Tel: (409) 838 6412 Email: gcw@obt.com
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-14-00423-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE GREATER MCALLEN STAR PROPERTIES, INC., MARILYN HARDISON, AND JASEN HARDISON On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00241-CV Greater New Braunfels Home Builders Association, David Pfeuffer, Oakwood Estates Development Co., and Larry Koehler, Appellants v. City
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-10-00155-CV CARROL THOMAS, BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND WOODROW REECE, Appellants V. BEAUMONT HERITAGE SOCIETY AND EDDIE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 09-0369 444444444444 GLENN COLQUITT, PETITIONER, v. BRAZORIA COUNTY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
More informationNo CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas. MARC T. SEWELL, Appellant
No. 03-13-00580-CV In the Court of Appeals For the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas MARC T. SEWELL, Appellant ACCEPTED 03-13-00580-CV 223EFJ017765929 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 13 October
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. IN THE ESTATE OF Steven Desmer LAMBECK, Deceased From the County Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. PR-07450 Honorable Kathleen
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-09-00022-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE GENE ASHLEY D/B/A ROOFTEC On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued June 5, 2014. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00193-CV VICTOR S. ELGOHARY AND PETER PRATT, Appellants V. HERRERA PARTNERS, L.P., HERRERA PARTNERS, G.A.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO CV. JAMES M. GILBERT A/K/A MATT GILBERT, Appellant
Opinion issued September 24, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-06-00159-CV JAMES M. GILBERT A/K/A MATT GILBERT, Appellant V. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. G MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Coates et al v Brazoria County, et al Doc. 159 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION DIANA COATES, et al, Plaintiffs, VS. BRAZORIA COUNTY TEXAS, et al, Defendants.
More information6/12/2012. OLSON&OLSON LLP Wortham Tower, Suite Allen Parkway Houston, Texas (713)
I Do Declare! A Cautionary Tale About Declaratory Judgments for Cities. Loren B. Smith OLSON&OLSON LLP Wortham Tower, Suite 600 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019 (713) 533-3800 www.olsonllp.com Sovereign
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. IN RE SONJA Y. WEBSTER, Relator
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 10, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00945-CV IN RE SONJA Y. WEBSTER, Relator Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2
More informationLegal Q&A By Zindia Thomas, TML Assistant General Counsel
Legal Q&A By Zindia Thomas, TML Assistant General Counsel Q. What is dual office holding? A. Dual office holding refers to an aspect of Texas law that prevents a person from holding two or more public
More informationEmployee COMPLAINT FORM - LEVEL ONE. 1. Name: 2. Address: 3. Telephone number: ( ) 4. Campus:
EXHIBIT A Employee COMPLAINT FORM - LEVEL ONE To file a formal complaint, please fill out this form completely and submit it by hand delivery, fax, or U.S. mail to the appropriate administrator within
More informationBOARD MEETINGS (LEGAL)
A board may act only by majority vote of the members present at a meeting held in compliance with Government Code Chapter 551, at which a quorum of the board is present and voting. A majority vote is generally
More informationMADE EASY Texas Conflict of Interest Laws. Zindia Thomas Local Government Section / Office of the Attorney General (512)
2012 Texas Conflict of Interest Laws MADE EASY Answers to the most frequently asked questions about the Texas Conflict of Interest Laws Zindia Thomas Local Government Section / Office of the Attorney General
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 31, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00954-CV REGINA THIBODEAUX, Appellant V. TOYS "R" US-DELAWARE, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 269th
More informationTHE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT STATUTE
THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT STATUTE Gordon K. Wright Cooper & Scully, P.C. Gordon.wright@cooperscully.com 2017 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. It is not intended
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 20, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01308-CV KAREN DAVISON, Appellant V. PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DOUGLAS OTTO,
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. Petitioner, Respondent. From the First Court of Appeals at Houston, Texas. (No.
No. 15-0993 FILED 15-0993 12/19/2016 5:11:34 PM tex-14366426 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS THE HONORABLE MARK HENRY, COUNTY JUDGE OF GALVESTON COUNTY, Petitioner,
More informationCase 6:15-cv WSS Document 25 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:15-cv-00231-WSS Document 25 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION ALBERT J. TURK, M.D. and SHELLEY TURK, R.N., v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS TONY TRUJILLO, Appellant, v. SYLVESTER CARRASCO, Appellee. O P I N I O N No. 08-08-00299-CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Reeves County,
More informationOffice of the Attorney General State of Texas. Opinion No. JC October 17, 2000
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0294, 2000 WL 1563173 (Tex.A.G.) Office of the Attorney General State of Texas Opinion No. JC - 0294 October 17, 2000 Re: Whether a city council may pay attorney's fees incurred
More informationDISPUTES BETWEEN OPERATORS AND NON-OPERATORS
DISPUTES BETWEEN OPERATORS AND NON-OPERATORS Michael C. Sanders Sanders Willyard LLP Houston Bar Association Oil, Gas & Mineral Law Section June 23, 2016 SOURCES OF DISPUTES Operator s Standard of Conduct
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed March 5, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01212-CV KHYBER HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant V. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued May 25, 2017 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00897-CV BENNY VANCE AND PIERRE METZENER, Appellants V. MARK C. POPKOWSKI, JODY M. POPKOWSKI, TAMMY EVANS,
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-09-00008-CV PARROT-ICE DRINK PRODUCTS OF AMERICA, LTD., Appellant V. K & G STORES, INC., BALJIT
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed December 12, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00436-CV IN RE BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM PROPERTIES (N.A.), LP AND BHP BILLITON
More information