Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15-0993
5/19/2016 3:56:25 PM
tex-10728244
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
NO. 15-0993
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
J. Greg Hudson
SBN 10156980
HUDSON & OLEARY LLP
1010 Mopac Circle, Suite 201
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 441-9941 Phone
(512) 441-1501 Facsimile
ghudson@holaw.net
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Collin County, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin,
471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App.Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ....................5
Dist. Judges of 188th Judicial Dist. v. County Judge and Commissioners Court for
Gregg County, Tex.,
657 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. App.Texarkana 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) .........................5
District Judges of Collin County v. Commissioners Court of Collin County, 677
S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App.Dallas 1984, writ refd n.r.e).........................................7
Ector County v. Stringer,
843 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. 1992) ......................................................................... 5, 6, 7
Lewis v. City of Fort Worth,
126 Tex. 458, 89 S.W.2d 975 (Tex. 1936) .............................................................6
Vondy v. Commissioners Court,
620 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.1981) ..................................................................................7
Statutes
TEX. CONST. art. V, 8 ..............................................................................................5
TEX. GOVT CODE 75.401(d). ...................................................................................3
TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE 152.011 .............................................................................3
iii
grant the petition for review and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 11(c), Collin County
represents that it has not been and will not be paid any fee for preparing this brief.
ARGUMENT
THE TRIAL COURTS INJUNCTION INTERFERED WITH THE
COMMISSIONERS COURTS STATUTORY DUTIES TO PROVIDE FOR
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
Included in the legislative responsibilities of the Commissioners Court is the
statutory duty to budget for payment of salaries and benefits to County employees
TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE 152.011.
job duties). The District Court, on a sua sponte basis without any evidentiary
hearing, substituted its judgment for that of the Commissioners Court. Allowing
this practice to stand would preclude the Commissioners Court from being able to
comply with its statutory duties to set compensation for County employees.
It
county government provides the staffing and resources sufficient to allow for
county departments and the other branches of county government to perform their
essential functions.
Commissioners Court for Gregg County, Tex., 657 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. App.
Texarkana 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v.
Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100, 110 (Tex. Civ. App.Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
The Texas Supreme Court had occasion to interpret this grant of authority in
the context of county employee compensation in Ector County v. Stringer, 843
S.W.2d 477 (Tex. 1992). Ector County involved discretionary fiscal decisions
made by the Commissioners Court in the performance of their official duties.
Rather than giving the district court broad authority, as the First Court of Appeals
has done in the case below, the Texas Supreme Court narrowly circumscribed the
district courts powers in reviewing such decisions. It stated:
[A] court has no right to substitute its judgment and discretion for the
judgment and discretion of the governing body on which the law visits
the primary power and duty to act. Of course, if such governing body
5
TEX. GOVT. CODE 75.401(d), usurping the authority of the Commissioners Court
to set the salary amount to be paid to Ms. Quiroga. District Judges of Collin
County v. Commissioners Court of Collin County, 677 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Tex.
App.Dallas 1984, writ refd n.r.e) (district judges order that set a salary is
Such
action usurps the legislative grant of authority vested in the Commissioners Court,
in the instant case, by TEX. GOVT. CODE 75.401(d).
Second, the overreach by the District Court threatens the separation of
powers doctrine of government, allowing the decisions of the District Court to
interfere with, and in this instance override the valid exercise the legislative power
of the Commissioners Court.
Third, the District Courts action, in setting Ms. Quirogas compensation
was taken sua sponte, outside the political process for which the public has a right
to participate. Implicit in any legislative act is the right for such action to be taken
in the open, with rights afforded to the public to participate and provide input.
And lastly, practically and pragmatically, if a District Court is allowed to
8
assume the role of big brother to the decisions of the Commissioners Court,
second guessing the Commissioners decisions and acting to override those for
which the Court disagrees, the result would be the degradation and erosion of the
County Commissioners day-to-day control of the County budget and County
expenditures.
PRAYER
Collin County respectfully prays that the petition in this case be granted and
that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Greg Hudson
J. Greg Hudson
SBN 10156980
HUDSON & OLEARY LLP
1010 Mopac Circle, Suite 201
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 441-9941 Phone
(512) 441-1501 Facsimile
ghudson@holaw.net
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Collin County, Texas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Brief of Amicus Curiae Collin County, Texas
was served electronically on this the 19th day of May to the following counsel of
record:
N. Terry Adams, Jr.
tadams@bmpllp.com
Joseph M. Nixon
jnixon@bmpllp.com
Nicholas D. Stepp
nstepp@bmpllp.com
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 623-0887
Fax: (713) 960-1527
Mark W. Stevens
markwandstev@sbcglobal.net
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 8118
Galveston, TX 77553
(409) 765-6306 telephone
(409) 765-6469 facsimile
Attorney for Respondent
10
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned attorney certifies that this document complies with the
word-count limitations of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4 according to the word count feature
of MS Word. This document contains 2,272 words.
11