No. 15-0117
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on March 9, 2016. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on May 27, 2016. File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
January 21, 2016
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:
Chief Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.View Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video PDF
| Appellate District: | 12th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Cond Granted |
| COA Docket No.: | 12-14-00329-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Jim Worthen |
| Trial Court: | 3rd District Court |
| County: | Henderson |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Joe D. Clayton |
| Trial Docket: | 2014C-0144 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-07-08 | Case Stored | ||
| 2016-06-29 | Letter sent to parties from Supreme Court - See Remarks | ||
| 2016-05-27 | Stay Order lifted | ||
| 2016-05-27 | Opinion issued | Writ of Mandamus conditionally granted | |
| This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between March 9, 2016 and May 27, 2016. | |||
| 2016-03-09 | Oral argument | ||
| 2016-03-03 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | ||
| 2016-02-02 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2016-02-01 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2016-01-26 | Submission reset | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2016-01-26 | Motion to postpone submission date disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2016-01-22 | Motion to postpone submission date filed | ||
| 2016-01-20 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2016-01-19 | Mandamus Set to Argue | ||
| 2016-01-19 | Petition for Writ of Mandamus disposed | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2016-01-19 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| This case was pending on merits briefs between June 22, 2015 and January 19, 2016. | |||
| 2015-06-22 | Reply Brief (Relator) | ||
| 2015-06-08 | Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2015-05-15 | Brief on the Merits (Relator) | ||
| 2015-04-20 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | ||
| 2015-04-17 | Amicus Curiae Brief received (Amicus Curiae) | ||
| 2015-04-17 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2015-04-10 | Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2015-03-11 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2015-03-11 | Motion to Stay Disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2015-03-11 | Stay Order issued | ||
| 2015-03-09 | Reply to Response to Motion | ||
| 2015-03-06 | Notice received | ||
| 2015-03-02 | Response to Motion filed | ||
| 2015-02-27 | Letter Filed | ||
| 2015-02-25 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2015-02-23 | Amendment to Motion filed | ||
| 2015-02-20 | Notice received | ||
| 2015-02-18 | Motion to Stay Filed | ||
| 2015-02-18 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2015-02-18 | Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Relator) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tarrant Regional Water District |
|
Real Party In Interest | |||||
| Smith, Beverly Wilson |
|
Other Interested Party | |||||
| Lazy W District No. 1 |
|
Relator | |||||
| Bennett, Monty |
|
Intervenor |
| Amicus Curiae | Counsel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| City of Dallas |
|
||
| State of Texas |
|
This dispute between two local governments has reached the Supreme Court on a fast track. The question relates to a very early step of the condemnation process: the court appointing special commissioners to make an initial evaluation of property value.
When Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) filed suit to condemn some land for a pipeline easement across land held by another local entity (Lazy W District No. 1), a plea to the jurisdiction was filed immediately, even before appointment of the special commissioners. The trial court declined to move forward until it could first resolve the question raised by the plea, whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction at all. At TRWD's request, the court of appeals granted mandamus relief ordering that the appointments be made immediately. Lazy W petitioned the Supreme Court, which issued a stay freezing proceedings below. It has now scheduled the petition for oral argument.
