Supreme Court of Texas Blog: Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court

No. 13-0768
TAMES

BCCA APPEAL GROUP, INC. v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS

Oral argument was held on September 2, 2015. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on April 29, 2016. It then denied rehearing on September 23, 2016 File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 5 articles about this case.

September 3, 2015

Houston Argues for Right to Regulate Pollution

from Texas Tribune

The Court has issued opinions:

September 1, 2015

Houston Seeks to Keep Power to Police Air Pollution

from Texas Tribune

August 31, 2015

Preview of the first September argument sitting

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 6 other cases.

March 6, 2015

Two opinions: Texas’s limits on arbitration clauses in medical contracts struck down; the duty of good faith within oil and gas royalty interests [Mar. 6, 2015]

from SCOTXblog

The article also mentions:
  • KCM FINANCIAL LLC, R.J. SIKES, ROGER SIKES, KATHY SIKES, GREG LOUVIER, PAM LOUVIER, CHRISTY ROME, R. CRIST VIAL, DACOTA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, L.L.P. A/K/A DACOTA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, L.P., RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, AND RANGE PRODUCTION I, L.P. v. BETTY LOU BRADSHAW
  • February 20, 2015

    Eight grants of review for oral argument in March [Feb. 20, 2015]

    from SCOTXblog

    This article also mentions 7 other cases.

    Opinions

    April 29, 2016

    Green
    Hecht
    Johnson
    Willett
    Guzman
    Lehrmann
    Boyd
    Devine
    Brown

    Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Hecht, Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, Justice Guzman, Justice Lehrmann, Justice Devine, and Justice Brown joined and in which Justice Boyd joined as to parts III(B) and IV. PDF

    Boyd

    Justice Boyd delivered a dissenting opinion.View Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video PDF

     

    Court of Appeals

    Appellate District:1st Court of Appeals
    Outcome Below:Reverse & Render
    COA Docket No.:01-11-00332-CV
    Opinion Author:Honorable James Patrick 'Jim' Sharp

    Trial Court

    Trial Court:269th District Court
    County:Harris
    Trial Judge:Honorable Daniel Earle Hinde
    Trial Docket:2008-09399

    Docket Entries

    Date Event Outcome  
    2016-09-23 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed Denied
    2016-09-23 Mandate issued  
    2016-08-15 Reply to Response to Motion for Rehearing filed (Respondent)  
    2016-08-04 Response to Motion for Rehearing (Petitioner)  
    2016-06-28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed   Filing granted
    2016-06-28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
    2016-06-22 Designation of Lead Counsel  
    2016-06-20 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
    2016-06-15 Motion for Rehearing  
    2016-06-15 Case forwarded to Court
    2016-05-13 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing disposed   Filing granted
    2016-05-13 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing  
    2016-04-29 Dissenting opinion issued.   Issued
    2016-04-29 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment affirmed/reversed in part/rendered
    2016-04-29 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
      This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between September 11, 2015 and April 29, 2016.  
    2015-09-11 Post submission brief filed (Respondent)  
    2015-09-02 Oral argument  
    2015-09-01 Exhibits in case/cause filed (Petitioner)  
    2015-08-28 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
    2015-08-17 Notice of Appearance  
    2015-08-17 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
    2015-08-04 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
    2015-08-03 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
    2015-07-31 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
    2015-07-03 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
      This case was waiting for oral argument between March 6, 2015 and July 3, 2015.  
    2015-03-06 Motion to re-set submission date disposed   Filing granted
    2015-03-04 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
    2015-02-27 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
    2015-02-26 Motion to re-set submission date filed.  
    2015-02-20 Petition for Review granted
    2015-02-20 Petition for Review disposed Filing granted
    2015-02-20 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
    2015-02-10 Response to Amicus Curiae Brief filed (Respondent)  
    2015-01-27 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
    2015-01-20 Amicus Curiae Brief received (Amicus Curiae)  
    2015-01-14 Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner)  
    2015-01-12 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
    2015-01-12 Amicus Curiae Brief received (Amicus Curiae)  
    2014-12-04 Motion to Extend Time to File Reply filed  
    2014-12-04 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
    2014-11-26 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
    2014-10-23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
    2014-10-23 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
    2014-09-23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
    2014-09-23 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
    2014-09-09 Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner)  
    2014-09-05 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
    2014-07-24 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
    2014-07-24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
    2014-06-25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
    2014-06-25 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
    2014-06-17 Case Record Filed  
    2014-06-12 Record Requested in Petition for Review  
    2014-06-06 Brief on the Merits Requested  
    2014-05-06 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
    2014-04-15 MET to file reply disposed of   Filing granted
    2014-04-15 Motion to Extend Time to File Reply filed  
    2014-04-07 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
    2014-03-10 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
    2014-03-07 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
    2014-02-06 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed   Filing granted
    2014-02-06 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
    2014-01-10 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
    2013-12-23 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
    2013-12-19 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
    2013-12-10 Case forwarded to Court
    2013-12-05 Response Waiver filed  
    2013-11-13 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  
    2013-09-27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
    2013-09-26 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed  

    Parties

    Party Counsel Role
    City of Houston, Texas
    Mr. Ronald Charles Lewis
    Ms. Collyn A. Peddie
    Mr. David M. Feldman
    Mr. Bertrand L. Pourteau II
    Ms. Judith Lee Ramsey
    Ms. Lynette Fons
    Ms. Mary Beth Stevenson
    Ms. Aundrea Kristine Gulley
    Ms. Kathy D. Patrick
    Ms. Donna Lynn Edmundson
    Mr. Robert W. Higgason
    Respondent
    BCCA Appeal Group, Inc.
    Ms. Macey Reasoner Stokes
    Mr. Evan Andrew Young
    Mr. Matthew L. Kuryla
    Ms. Cristina Espinosa Rodriguez
    Petitioner

    Amici Curiae

    Amicus Curiae Counsel
    Texas Oil & Gas Association
    Mr. C. Carrick Brooke-Davidson
    Texas Chemical Council
    Ms. Christina T. Wisdom
    The National Association of Manufacturers
    Mr. James P. Sullivan
    The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
    Mr. James P. Sullivan
    Air Alliance Houston
    Ilan M Levin
    American Lung Association of the Southwest
    Ilan M Levin
    Office of the Governor
    Mr. James D. Blacklock
    Mr. Arthur C. D'Andrea
    Harris County Attorney's Office
    Mr. Vincent Reed Ryan Jr.
    Mr. Rock W.A. Owens

    Is Houston's clean-air ordinance preempted by the Texas Clean Air Act?

    civil penalties environment preemption regulatory

    Houston adopted an ordinance that included some clean-air regulations, giving local officials the power to enforce them. These included some rules that mirrored requirements of state law, which the local officials could then enforce through civil penalties under the local ordinance.

    BCCA sued, arguing that the ordinance is preempted by state law. The City responds that these kinds of rules are within its authority as a home-rule city under the Texas Constitution and, in any event, the state law should be construed to disfavor preemption in this area.

    The Governor's office filed its own amicus brief supporting BCCA, arguing that the city's penalty amounts to a criminal penalty that would interfere with the way state the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality deals with repeat offenders. A group of local officials responded with an amicus brief arguing that, to the contrary, local governments can properly impose strict-liability sanctions such as this without offending state law.

    ...
    ...