2020) (citing Pidgeon for the proposition that where a question presents an important issue of first impression in this Court, we decline to address the question in the first instance and defer instead for the court of appeals to address it after full briefing and argument by the parties.); see also In re Occidental Chem. At the time this suit was filed, the Freeman injunction was in effect, as it had neither been stayed, reversed, or lifted. 1993). (To summarize, the Declaratory Judgments Act waives governmental immunity against claims that a statute or ordinance is invalid. On appeal, the Pidgeon Parties have not shown that the trial court erred in dismissing all of their claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on governmental immunity under the first ground of the Hybrid Motion. Granting Occupational Drivers License being signed by the Judge. Alternatively, appellants lack standing as taxpayers to seek claw back of public funds already spent. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 633, 634 n. 4 (Tex. On 12/04/2018 Rogers filed a Civil Right - Employment Discrimination court case against City Of Houston in U.S. District Courts. Moreover, even if appellants could sue the City for alleged ultra vires acts by the Mayor, it is well-settled that, when plaintiffs assert only ultra vires claims, only prospective injunctive relief, measured from the date of the injunction, is available. Public Datasets 201 Caroline, Suite 420 Occupational License during the period of suspension in the State of Texas. Cause Number. As set forth, supra, appellants also could not show a probable right to recovery or any wrongful act by Mayor Parker, Mayor Turner, or the City, which is an essential requirement to obtain the injunctive relief requested. Co. v. Beasley, 598 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Tex. The Ballad of 'Deepfake Drake' - The New York Times 77251-1525 For Questions Call (713) 274-8585; To request copies to be sent via FAX, Email or Postal Mail please use our Copy . Citation and Notices. Additionally, Section 6.204(c) prohibits the State and any of its agencies and political subdivisions from giving effect to any: (1) public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in the state or in any other jurisdiction; or. In Obergefell, the court concluded that excluding same-sex couples from the protections of marriage would hinder a state's interest in childrearing, procreation, and education. See Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 17879 (2d Cir. We take judicial notice that after Obergefell was decided, on July 1, 2015, the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling enjoining the State from enforcing the provisions in the Texas Constitution and the Family Code, or any other laws or regulations, that prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same sex or recognizing same-sex marriage. De Leon v. Abbott, 791 F.3d 619, 62425 (5th Cir. This case began on October 22, 2014 trial court No. Once a TRO is electronically filed, we would suggest that you contact our office so that we are aware that it has been filed. Lazarides, 367 S.W.3d at 800, 805. With Nina Feldman and . TX Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 374); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 22526. Click here to learn more about electronic filing. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 622 (Tex. 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. They may be viewed in the Public Viewing Room on the second floor of the Joint Processing Center located at 700 N. San Jacinto. See 570 U.S. at 77475, 133 S.Ct. Appellants' claims, therefore, do not fall into the ultra vires exception to governmental immunity. Harris County Clerk's Office 2015). 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. In addition to being the EFM, EFileTexas.gov is also one of the certified EFSPs. Dep't of Transp. You must follow the instructions within the Citation with which you were served and file a written answer with the court on or before 10:00 A.M We are no longer able to accept online payments at this time. The City is not a religious organization and [t]he Constitution does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex, despite any individual person's religious disagreement. Moreover, the UDJA does not confer jurisdiction where none exists. 2020, no pet.). 2675. In this interlocutory appeal, the City of Houston appeals the trial court's order denying the City's motion for summary judgment based on lack of jurisdiction. A clerk also attends each court docket in support of the court. Obergefell and DeLeon do not compel states to pay taxpayer-funded benefits to same sex relationships, and federal courts do not commandeer state spending decisions, III. City, 465 S.W.3d 623, 632 (Tex. at 388. (mem. Indeed, in listing those terms and conditionsthe rights, benefits, and responsibilities to which same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, must have access, was no accident. Id. No probable, irreparable injury, or imminent harm. Appellants cannot show a preservation of status quo element, which is a requirement for the injunctive relief sought. As such, appellants' request for injunctive relief was properly dismissed. April 27, 2023, 6:00 a.m. Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus(Criminal), Returning/filing search warrants (original copy), Filing documents related to a criminal case for, Filing Petitions for an Occupational/Restricted Drivers License for. Plaintiff: Antonio Prado Rosas, Juvencio Barajas Jr and Valente Garcia Mulato. 2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014). See Turner v. Pidgeon, U.S. , 138 S. Ct. 505, 199 L.Ed.2d 385 (2017). d. Alternatively, Appellants have not Pleaded and Cannot Establish that Mayor Parker was Acting Without Legal Authority in October 2014 when Mayor Parker Declined to Enforce State and Local Laws that were Unconstitutional and Unenforceable. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL LANDRUM. This section You must pay the jury fee at the same time. How do I contact a city/county department? The Court further expounded that the create[ion of] two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State impermissibly place[d] same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage and wr[o]te[] inequality into the entire United States Code. Id. Appellants also do not indicate if monies are to be sought from and reimbursed by third-party insurers, beneficiaries, or City employees themselves. 2015) (quoting City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 654 (Tex. Rules and guidelines on how to handle any of your court business, including instructions on how to reset and pay for your case (s), as well as downloadable forms, are available at no charge on our website. 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. TX Supreme Court Opinions and Cases | FindLaw 2015, pet. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter. 2584. on the 20th day after the date you were served with the citation. pet. See id. When there is an issue as to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, including an issue of governmental immunity, the trial court first must determine that it has subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing the merits. provider (EFSP). orders on behalf of the State of Texas. Appellants did not file a motion to retain. April 14, 2023. Appellants' argument presupposes that the City providing employee benefits for married same-sex couples has been compelled by the federal government to do so. Although appellants attempt to limit McRaven to officials who enjoy absolute authority, the Texas Supreme Court did not. IF YOU ARE PART OF THIS GROUP PLEASE CONTACT THE COURT AT 713.247.8924 AND SPEAK TO SOMEONE REGARDING A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION AND A SPECIALIZED DOCKET TO ENSURE YOUR CONTINUED SAFETY. 13-18-00219-CV, 622 S.W.3d 397, 402 (Tex. Such use of CourtCaseFinder.com may subject you to civil and criminal litigation and penalties. Aug. 29, 2014) (Lake, J.) Employees Pension Sys., 549 S.W.3d 566, 575 (Tex. 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. FOLLOW US, Contact Us To the extent this court affirms the trial court's rulings on the merits, I respectfully dissent. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 157 (Tex. 2675. at 624-25. Harris County Court Records Family Intake accepts pleadings, filings and documents 4. This information is not a comprehensive Municipal Court | South Houston, TX See Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 556 (Tex. e. Appellants have not Pleaded and Cannot Establish that Either Mayor Parker or Mayor's Turner's Continuation of the Directive to Provide Spousal Employment Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses of City Employees is Without Legal Authority. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 63335 (Tex. 2017, pet. When reviewing an order in which the trial court paradoxically dismisses claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and also adjudicates the merits of those claims, this court should first address all the challenges to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. HALL. An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; accord Cheniere Energy, Inc. v. Parallax Enters. The trial court signed a final order granting the Hybrid Motion and dismissing all of the Pidgeon Parties' claims without specifying any ground on which the trial court relied. The above analysis alone suffices to explain why the trial court's jurisdictional dismissal based on governmental immunity should be affirmed. OPINION. We accept in-person payments in the following forms: We accept payments by mail in the following forms. denied). Electronic (non-certified) - $1.00 for up to 10 pages and .10 cents per page for each page over 10 pages, per document, Electronic (certified) - $1.00 for up to 10 pages and .10 cents per page for each page over 10 pages and a certification fee of $5.00, per document. 2006). Appellants filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court, which was granted.5. App.Houston [14th Dist.] This case is not final and, as such, we follow the Supreme Court's holdings in Obergefell, Pavan, and Bostock in reaching our decision. What are the main causes for rejection for e-filings? orders and the emancipation of minors. Moreover, appellants' reliance on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which was brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and addressed whether the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act substantially burdened private employers' religious exercise, is misplaced, because it is not analogous. Some of the different case (cause) types heard in family Also, see the Most documents are available to view online within minutes of being accepted. In 2005, after approval by the Texas Legislature and Texas voters, Article I of the Texas Constitution was revised to include the following amendments under Section 32: (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. 2019); Curry v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 434 S.W.3d 815, 820 (Tex. Clear Filters. A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it applies the law correctly and some evidence reasonably supports its ruling. denied). 2011); see also Tex. 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). It further explained: The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and -- unlike the 5th Circuit in De Leon -- it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional. Instead, the majority includes substantial amounts of obiter dicta in its analysis. Click on a week day below to view that particular docket. to view the Web site. Harris County Child Support is a registry responsible for receipting child support payments made through our office. (We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion.). Id. In the Hybrid Motion, the City Parties argued that this decision was a discretionary act within Mayor Parker's powers as mayor of Houston, including her powers under article VI, section 7a of the Houston City Charter. Appellants' issue VII and IX are overruled. App.Houston [14th Dist.] Disbursement Unit. Trial Dockets Eviction Citation Return. *Documents do not match case number provided. MEADOWS, DRAKE vs CITY OF HOUSTON | Court Records - UniCourt The only basis for avoiding the Mayor's immunity from suit the Pidgeon Parties assert on appeal is that this immunity does not apply to ultra vires claims. Additionally, as analyzed, supra, appellants are not entitled to any injunctive relief from the City for an ultra vires claim from which the City is immune. To fall within this exception to immunity, the Pidgeon Parties must not complain of the Mayor's exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the Mayor failed to perform a purely ministerial act or acted without legal authority. 124, 1 (West 2003). Governmental Immunity Bars Appellants' Suit against Mayor Turner. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 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. Civ. Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Courts Costs, Instructions For Completing Withdrawal of Funds From The Registry Of the Court, Application to Withdraw Funds From The Registry of The Court. Their demand for a claw back remedy was, therefore, properly dismissed. In their live petition, the Pidgeon Parties alleged two claims: (1) the Pidgeon Parties brought suit as taxpayers to enjoin the Mayor's alleged ultra vires expenditures of public funds, and to secure an injunction that requires city officials to claw back public funds that were spent in violation of section 6.204(c)(2) of the Texas Family Code; article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution; and article II, section 22 of the City of Houston charter; and (2) the Pidgeon Parties brought suit under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act, asking the trial court to declare that the Mayor Annise Parker's directive of November 19, 2013 violated state law, and to declare further that the mayor and city officials have no authority to disregard state law merely because it conflicts with their personal beliefs of what the United States Constitution or federal law requires. Learn more about posting a bond, bond forfeitures, cash bond refunds, and the Bail Bond Board here. See id. Payments should be made payable to Marilyn Burgess, Harris County District Clerk, and include your Case Number. See Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Ga., U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1737, 207 L.Ed.2d 218 (2020). Some of the different case (cause) types handled online www.texas.gov. See Curry, 434 S.W.3d at 820. When this suit was filed in October 2014, provision of same-sex benefits pursuant to Mayor Parker's directive was mandated by the Freeman injunction. An appellate court should strive to avoid unnecessary statements in its opinions, especially if the unnecessary statements address matters over which the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Occupational License. Fam. You can research how to prepare a Petition for Occupational License at the Harris County Law Library, which is located at 1019 Congress 2584 ([T]he States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples).