No. 13-0815
Click for Official Page
The Court requested full merits briefing on February 14, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on November 21, 2014. File Closed
Appellate District: | 12th Court of Appeals |
Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
COA Docket No.: | 12-12-00353-CV |
Opinion Author: | Honorable Sam Griffith |
Trial Court: | 392nd District Court |
County: | Henderson |
Trial Judge: | Honorable Carter William Tarrance |
Trial Docket: | 2012B-0207 |
Date | Event | Outcome | |
---|---|---|---|
2015-01-23 | Case Stored | ||
2015-01-16 | Mandate issued | ||
This case was waiting for a possible rehearing motion between November 21, 2014 and January 16, 2015. | |||
2014-11-21 | Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1 | ||
2014-11-21 | Petition for Review disposed | Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1 | |
2014-11-21 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court | |
2014-11-21 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
This case was pending on merits briefs between April 4, 2014 and November 21, 2014. | |||
2014-04-04 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
2014-03-17 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
2014-02-14 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
2014-02-14 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
2014-02-14 | Case Record Filed | ||
This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between December 19, 2013 and February 14, 2014. | |||
2013-12-19 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
2013-11-22 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
2013-10-22 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
2013-10-16 | Response Waiver filed | ||
2013-10-10 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) |
Party | Counsel | Role | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Trinity Valley Community College |
|
Respondent | ||
Damuth, II, Billy Edward |
|
Petitioner |
The Court applied its decision in THE CITY OF HOUSTON v. STEVE WILLIAMS, ET AL., No. 09-0770. There, the Court held that a group of former fighters could sue over their contract with the city. Here, the court of appeals held that the college (a local government entity) was immune from suit by an employee (a professor/coach).
The court of appeals suggested several distinctions with Williams. The Supreme Court rejected each in turn, concluding that the essence of the claim was a suit for services — which the court viewed as covered by the Local Government Code's waiver for contract claims.