Harris We conclude appellants have failed to both plead and establish a waiver of immunity based on the Mayor Parker's failure to perform a purely ministerial act. In their motion, appellants argued that the only issues for the trial court to resolve were questions of law: (1) Whether the city can defend its present-day defiance of section 6.204(c)(2) by relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Obergefell and Pavan v. Smith, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2075, 198 L.Ed.2d 636 (2017); and (2) Whether the city can defend its pre-Obergefell defiance of section 6.204(c)(2) by relying on then-mayor Parker's personal beliefs that the statute was unconstitutional. Appellants also argued in their motion that they were entitled to an injunction requiring Mayor Turner and the City to claw back public funds that they previously spent in violation of Section 6.204(c)(2). See Univ. It includes important statistical information on jury . See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 37273. 2006) (quoting Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. With Nina Feldman. Andrade v. Venable, 372 S.W.3d 134, 136 (Tex. Such use of CourtCaseFinder.com may subject you to civil and criminal litigation and penalties. You further agree not to use the information provided for any unlawful purposes and you understand that we cannot confirm that information provided below is accurate or complete. See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 380. op.). The case status is Pending - Other Pending. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972), overruled by Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 675, 135 S.Ct. Id. Thus, there is no waiver of governmental immunity on this basis. The Mayor and the City officials have no right to violate state law merely on account of their personal belief that state law violates the Constitution, IX. Click on in the below citations/notices to view more details. 2014) (Garcia, J. 2012, no pet.) As County Clerk, it is my goal to provide the residents of Harris County with quality customer service. Texas. The Petition for an Occupational License is not provided by the Harris County Clerks Office. While the [U]DJA waives sovereign immunity for certain claims, it is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. (mem. Harris County Clerk Accessible Monday - Friday, 7:00 am - 5:45 pm. I, 32; see H.J.R. 2584. On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the federal DOMA, which defined marriage for federal-law purposes as limited to unions between a man and a woman and denied same-sex couples, including those legally married in a state in which same-sex marriage was recognized, the federal benefits and protections granted to heterosexual married couples. Please try again. Houston Municipal Court. You must file a Petition for an Occupational License with a court that has jurisdiction over the matter. Criminal District Courts Please see the Harris County District Courts homepage for additional information including: 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013) (citation omitted). Moreover, the UDJA does not confer jurisdiction where none exists. The Plaintiffs satisfy all the requirements for a temporary injunction. Tex. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) (The jurisdiction of the Court depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought. Media Requests In a decision dated June 30, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court reversed our decision, holding that the case should be remanded to the trial court so it could consider the impact of both Obergefell and DeLeon on appellants' claims. The Mission of the Municipal Courts Department is to provide an accessible legal forum for individuals to have their court matters heard in a fair and efficient manner, while providing a high level of integrity, professionalism and customer service. Our Terms of Service prohibit the use of CourtCaseFinder.com to determine an individual's eligibility for personal credit or employment, tenant screening, or other business transactions, or for any unlawful purposes such as stalking or harassing others. This case is not final and, as such, we follow the Supreme Court's holdings in Obergefell, Pavan, and Bostock in reaching our decision. As set forth, supra, an ultra vires claim cannot be asserted against a governmental entity but must instead be brought against a government official or employee of a governmental entity. Case Summary. While Mayor Parker's and the City's appeal was pending before our court, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Obergefell, in which it held that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 67576, 135 S.Ct. Feedback on Officer 16. 10. 2015) (quoting City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 654 (Tex. Petition for Eviction Based on Non-Payment of Rent cases filed by the Texas Attorney General that establish and enforce child support To fall within this ultra vires exception to governmental immunity, a suit must not complain of a government [official's] exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the [official] acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372. Just as Harris v. McRae rejected demands for compelling taxpayer-funded abortion, courts should reject attempts to compel taxpayer funding of same-sex relationship, IV. Instead, only when these improvident actions are unauthorized does an official shed the cloak of the sovereign and act ultra vires. Id. Appellants, who identify themselves as Houston residents and taxpayers, oppose Mayor Parker's directive and seek to enjoin Mayor Turner and the City from continuing to spend public funds for the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees by claiming those benefits violate state and city DOMAs contained in the Texas Constitution, Texas Family Code, and Houston City Charter.4 Appellants also seek an injunction to claw back taxpayer money that Mayor Parker and other city officials allegedly have unlawfully spent on same-sex spousal benefits of city employees. Jack PIDGEON and Larry Hicks, Appellants v. Sylvester TURNER, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Houston, and the City of Houston, Appellees. Thus, even if the Mayor misinterpreted the extrinsic law, this mistake would not waive the Mayor's immunity under the ultra vires exception. In a decision dated June 30, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court reversed our decision, holding that the case should be remanded to the trial court so it could consider the impact of both Obergefell and DeLeon on appellants' claims. Edited by Paige Cowett. They may be viewed in the Public Viewing Room on the second floor of the Joint Processing Center located at 700 N. San Jacinto. In its order, the trial court stated: On June 30, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court remanded this case to the 310th Court for both parties to have a full and fair opportunity to litigate their legal positions in light of Obergefell. How does a process server file the return of citation? Need help e-Filing? Crockett, Texas 75835. Jobs See Town of Shady Shores v. Swanson, 590 S.W.3d 544, 550 (Tex. 12. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. . Produced by Asthaa Chaturvedi , Alex Stern , Stella Tan and Rob Szypko. Issuing and recording citations, notices, executions, abstracts, garnishments, writs or any other process, document or service authorized or required to be issued by the clerk. Case Summary. In 2013, after a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),1 the then-Houston Mayor Annise Parker (Mayor Parker), on advice from the city attorney,2 on November 19, 2013, direct[ed] that same-sex spouses of employees who have been legally married in another jurisdiction be afforded the same benefits as spouses of a heterosexual marriage.3. The trial court denied the pleas and granted appellants' request for a temporary injunction prohibiting Mayor Parker from furnishing benefits to persons who were married in other jurisdictions to City employees of the same sex. Mayor Parker and the City filed an interlocutory appeal challenging both the order denying the pleas to the jurisdiction and the order granting the temporary injunction. If the defendant establishes that the trial court lacks jurisdiction, the plaintiff is then required to show that there is a material fact question about jurisdiction. On appeal, the Pidgeon Parties have not challenged the bases of this argument; instead, the Pidgeon Parties assert that Mayor Parker did not have discretion or authority to violate the law. The clerk also attends each court docket in support of the court. The law of the case doctrine is defined as that principle under which questions of law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages. Loram Maint. 2584. You must have a Certified copy of your driving record. When the ultimate and unrestrained objective of an official's duty is to interpret collateral law, a misinterpretation is not overstepping such authority; it is a compliant action even if ultimately erroneous. 1. South Houston 1018 Dallas South Houston, TX 77587 City Hall (Main Line) Phone: 713-947-7700 at 243. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 63335 (Tex. Private parties cannot circumvent governmental immunity by characterizing a suit for money damages as a claim for declaratory relief. Click on a week day below to view that particular docket. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Some of the different case (cause) types heard in family How do you handle emergency filings such as TROs? Disclaimer: The law is constantly changing and there may be times when the information on this web site will not be current. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 77251-1525 For Questions Call (713) 274-8585; To request copies to be sent via FAX, Email or Postal Mail please use our Copy . The Trial Court Should Have Denied Defendant's Plea to Jurisdiction, II. With Nina Feldman and . Appellants also seek a temporary and permanent injunction requiring the mayor and the city to claw back all public funds that they illegally spent on spousal benefits for the homosexual partners of city employees. It is unclear what appellants mean by the phrase claw back. Appellants do not identify what funds would have to be recovered by the City and from whom reimbursement would have to be sought. (832) 927-5800 Attn: Probate Court Department P.O. Houston, TX 77002 Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Res. On 11/23/2021 Graham filed a Civil Right - Employment Discrimination lawsuit against City of Houston, Texas. April 27, 2023, 6:00 a.m. If you are having difficulty satisfying your court ordered judgment, please come in and speak with an Annex Court Judge at any of our court locations. The doctrinal developments include the 2013 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor. Similarly, an applicant seeking permanent injunctive relief must demonstrate: (1) a wrongful act; (2) imminent harm; (3) irreparable injury; and (4) the absence of an adequate remedy at law. Information about Justice Court Cases. Contact Laura Goolsby . Id. Public Records; P.O. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 622 (Tex. 2584.14. The Act does not waive immunity against claims seeking a declaration of the claimant's statutory rights or an interpretation of an ordinance.) (citation omitted). ; see Treto v. Treto, No. 2015), rev'd sub nom. In the face of an issue or doubt as to whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction, a court may not presume that it has subject-matter jurisdiction and proceed to adjudicate the merits. If you do not know your case number, please include your full name and date of birth. This Tex.
jamie dinan, daughter
High-pressure air pump: dual function of blowing and suction, with
