No. 15-0037
Click for Official Page
The Court requested full merits briefing on June 12, 2015. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on September 18, 2015. File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
September 18, 2015
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:
Per Curiam OpinionView Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument N/A | Video N/A PDF
| Appellate District: | 12th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Reverse & Dismiss |
| COA Docket No.: | 12-13-00344-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Sam Griffith |
| Trial Court: | 159th District Court |
| County: | Angelina |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Paul E. White |
| Trial Docket: | CV-01271-12-3 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-10-30 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2015-09-18 | Petition for Review disposed | Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1 | |
| 2015-09-18 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 2015-09-18 | Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1 | ||
| 2015-09-18 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court | |
| 2015-08-17 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-07-30 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2015-07-10 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-06-19 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2015-06-17 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2015-06-12 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between April 8, 2015 and June 12, 2015. | |||
| 2015-04-08 | Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Respondent) | ||
| 2015-04-06 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2015-03-30 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2015-03-27 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2015-03-27 | Electronic communication sent to Party | ||
| 2015-02-27 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2015-01-27 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2015-01-23 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2015-01-15 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lawson, Louie |
|
Petitioner | ||
| City of Diboll, Texas |
|
Respondent |
The Supreme Court found the facts in this case indistinguishable from those in its recent decision in UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON v. SANDRA WILLIAMS AND STEVE WILLIAMS, No. 13-0338.
What makes this per curiam interesting is how the Court dealt with Williams being a plurality decision. Because only four Justices joined the "opinion of the court" in that case, its statements do not form a truly binding holding of the Court. So, to assemble a holding, the Court adds up the justices who agreed with the judgment, looking for a majority who shared a common holding.
Although not embracing the plurality’s analysis, Justice Boyd concurred with the opinion’s salient holding. Id. at 62 (Boyd, J., concurring). Thus, a majority of the Court agreed that under facts similar to those in this case, the recreational use statute does not apply.
