No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Copano NGL Services, LLC
v.
John Ashcraft, Individually and as Trustee for the John Ashcraft Family Trust 2012
v.
John Ashcraft, Individually and as Trustee for the John Ashcraft Family Trust 2012
Published
ACCEPTED 13-15-00342-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 12/29/2015 5:01:53 PM Dorian E. Ramirez CLERK
No. 13-15-00342-CV _____________________________________ FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 12/29/2015 5:01:53 PM Thirteenth District of Texas DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk _____________________________________ COPANO NGL SERVICES, LLC, Appellant, V. JOHN ASHCRAFT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JOHN ASHCRAFT FAMILY TRUST 2012, Appellee. _____________________________________ On Appeal from Cause No. 15-H-0082 23rd District Court, Matagorda County, Texas Hon. Ben Hardin, Judge Presiding APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF Charles R. “Skip” Watson, Jr. Christopher Dove State Bar No. 20967500 State Bar No. 24032138 [email protected] [email protected] Daniel Durell Ken McKay State Bar No. 24078450 State Bar No. 13690835 [email protected] [email protected] A. Antroy Arreola LOCKE LORD LLP State Bar No. 24006769 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200 [email protected] Austin, Texas 78701 Harry Holmes Thompson (512) 305-4700 (Telephone) State Bar No. 24088527 (512) 305-4800 (Facsimile) [email protected] LOCKE LORD LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 2800 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 226-1200 (Telephone) (713) 223-3717 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Index of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii Brief of the Argument in Reply ................................................................................. 1 I. Section 21.049 and John cannot be rewritten to change the unambiguous term “parties” to “landowners.” ................................................ 1 A. The plain language of section 21.049 applies to all “parties,” not just landowners. ..........................................................................................2 B. The Supreme Court’s holding that section 21.049 tolls the time for the “parties” to object is binding on all courts. ..........................................2 C. The Supreme Court’s policy that drove John — not allowing procedural technicalities to bar appeals — is not abandoned to benefit landowners......................................................................................5 II. The Supreme Court’s holding in John cannot be distinguished, watered-down, or limited to its facts. .............................................................. 6 A. The Supreme Court does not write broad holdings for one-of-a- kind cases. ...................................................................................................6 B. Actual knowledge will not suffice when the form of notice is “mandatory.”...............................................................................................7 C. John does not say whether the parties had “no notice.” .............................9 III. E-filing is no substitute for compliance with section 21.049. ......................... 9 A. The e-filing rule did not purport to repeal section 21.049. ......................10 B. There is no evidence of notice by e-service. ............................................11 IV. There is no uncertainty of title. ...................................................................... 13 Conclusion and Prayer ............................................................................................. 14 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 16 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 16 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Few v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 463 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. 1971) .............................................................................. 11 Greater Houston P’ship v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2015)................................................................................... 2 In re K.M.S., 91 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. 2002)................................................................................... 4 John v. State, 826 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. 1992) .......................................................................passim Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. v. Schunke, No. 04-13-00067-CV, 2013 WL 6672494 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 18, 2013, pet dism’d) ............................................................................................ 4 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) ........................................................................5, 8, 9 Shepard v. Ledford, 926 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ granted) .......................... 12 Tex. Co. v. Charles Clarke & Co., 182 S.W. 351 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915, writ dism’d) ............................................. 12 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. A.P.I. Pipe and Supply, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2013) ................................................................................ 3 Tutson v. Upchurch, 203 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, pet. denied) ............................... 12 Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) ................................................................................ 5 CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES TEX. GOV’T CODE 22.004(c) .................................................................................... 10 TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.049 ................................................................................passim iii TEX. R. CIV. P. 11 ..................................................................................................... 12 TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(f)(10) .......................................................................................... 10 OTHER AUTHORITIES The Supreme Court of Tex., Misc. Docket No. 13-9165, 38 Tex. Reg. 9683, (2013) .................................................................................................................. 10 iv TO THE HONORABLE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS: Ashcraft’s brief teeters on the false premise that liberal construction, which can ensure a landowner’s right to appeal a condemnation award, can be turned from a shield into a sword to prevent condemnors from appealing. That radical proposition is not supported by precedent — instead it requires this Court to rewrite the plain language of both the controlling statute and the Supreme Court’s opinion interpreting it. BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT IN REPLY I. Section 21.049 and John cannot be rewritten to change the unambiguous term “parties” to “landowners.” Liberal construction does not: (i) rewrite plain language of statutes and Supreme Court holdings; or (ii) deny parties’ right to appeal. But that is what Ashcraft is asking this Court to do. Lacking case law supporting his contortion of liberal construction, Ashcraft spends nearly 10,000 words trying to convince this Court to be the first to use the doctrine of liberal construction to rewrite section 21.049 to keep condemnors out of court. Ashcraft’s premise that liberal construction means the landowner can bar the courthouse door simply cannot withstand even cursory scrutiny.
[*1]A. The plain language of section 21.049 applies to all “parties,” not just landowners.
The Legislature’s language precludes rewriting section 21.049 to benefit only landowners:
Not later than the next working day after the day the decision is filed, the clerk shall send notice of the decision by certified or registered United States mail [] to the parties in the proceeding, or to their attorneys… TEX. PROP. CODE §21.049 (emphasis added).
Simply put, liberal construction cannot change the Legislature’s pronouncement that section 21.049 must apply to all “parties” to instead apply to only one party – the landowner. “[E]ven a liberal construction must remain grounded in the statute’s language. . . .” Greater Houston P’ship v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51, 62 (Tex. 2015). When the relevant portion of the provision is unambiguous, courts may not apply liberal construction, or “any other extra-textual construct” to change its meaning. See id. at 67.
Section 21.049 is unambiguous. It applies to all “parties.” No construction, “liberal” or otherwise, can change its plain language.
B. The Supreme Court’s holding that section 21.049 tolls the time for the “parties” to object is binding on all courts.
Ashcraft spends the bulk of his brief alternately:
(i) ignoring the Supreme Court’s holding in John that section 21.049 tolls filing objection for all “parties”; (ii) implying this Court is not bound by the Supreme Court’s “judicially-imposed interpretation” of section 21.049; and
[*2](iii) attempting to distinguish John as limited to its facts. Each argument leads this Court into error.
[*3][*4]C. The Supreme Court’s policy that drove John — not allowing procedural technicalities to bar appeals — is not abandoned to benefit landowners.
The Supreme Court’s holding that section 21.049 tolls the time for “parties” to object to commissioners’ awards “until the clerk sends the required notice pursuant to section 21.049,” John, 826 S.W.2d at 139, follows the Supreme Court’s long-standing policy that “the right of appeal should not be lost due to procedural technicalities.” See Roccaforte v. Jefferson Cnty, 341 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. 2011); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997) (“This Court has never wavered from the principle that appellate courts should not dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation” would preserve the appeal.).
Yet, Ashcraft boldly says that such “liberal constitution (sic) is afforded to the landowner, not the condemning party.” (AppelleeBr:44.) The problem of course, is that no court has ever transformed liberal construction that ensures a landowner’s appeal, into strict construction to ensure procedural technicalities deny an appeal.
Simply put, section 21.049 says the notice it specifies must be given to the “parties.” And the Supreme Court squarely held that the “parties’” time to object is tolled until that notice is given in the form prescribed by section 21.049. There is no ambiguity in the statute or in the Supreme Court’s holding construing it. And there is no authority holding to the contrary. This Court should be wary of any request to create such a conflict. II. The Supreme Court’s holding in John cannot be distinguished, watered- down, or limited to its facts.
[*5]Ashcraft is thus forced to try to limit John to its facts or create exceptions where none exist.
A. The Supreme Court does not write broad holdings for one-of-a- kind cases.
John’s holding resolved once-and-for-all Ashcraft’s “lynchpin issue” of when timely objections must be made. (See AppelleeBr:31.) So Ashcraft tries to limit John to its facts because he does not like the Supreme Court’s holding that the parties’ time to object is tolled until the clerk sends the required notice pursuant to section 21.049. He characterizes John as applying to landowners who receive “no notice” of a condemnation awards. (AppelleeBr: 22, 23, 28, 34, 47.)
But the Supreme Court only decides cases with broad significance to the State’s jurisprudence:
John’s holding, like section 21.049, expressly applies to all “parties” until notice in the form required by the statute is given; and
nowhere does John say the landowner had “no notice” of the condemnation award or that other forms of notice will suffice.
[*6]B. Actual knowledge will not suffice when the form of notice is “mandatory.”
Ashcraft’s protracted attempt to substitute “actual knowledge” of the commissioners’ award for notice in the form required by the Legislature, (AppelleeBr:35-46), flounders because it must rely on cases in which statutory notice provisions are not “regarded as mandatory.” (AppelleeBr:41 (emphasis added).)
In contrast, John turned on the Supreme Court’s holding that “this section must be construed as mandatory.” See John at 140 (emphasis added), and n.3. Thus, because “the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced as written.” Id. (emphasis added). “Therefore, in condemnation cases, the clerk must comply with the notice provisions.” Id.
[*7]First, immediately after stating that notice provisions require reasonable strictness, the Court held that the clerk “failed to follow the notice requirement with reasonable strictness” because the notice required by section 21.049 was sent “after their time to object had lapsed.” Id. at 141 n.4 (emphasis added). That is what happened here.
Second, any doubt that reasonable strictness might not require the form of notice “required . . . pursuant to section 21.049” was dispelled when the Court reaffirmed in the next footnote that it was the clerk’s failure to send the notice that tolls the time to object. Id. at 141 n.5.
[*8]Second, Roccaforte is actually an example of how the overarching policy that “the right of appeal should not be lost to procedural technicalities” is imposed to prevent (not to cause) loss of access to the courts. Roccaforte at 924, 926.
C. John does not say whether the parties had “no notice.”
To bolster his claim that actual knowledge should substitute for the “mandatory” notice in the form prescribed by section 21.049, Ashcraft repeatedly claims the landowner in John had no notice of the award. (AppelleeBr:22, 23, 28, 34, 46.) But John says no such thing. If it mattered whether a party had no notice the Supreme Court would surely have said so.
To sum up: both section 21.049 and John are clear and unambiguous. The time for filing objections is tolled for all “parties.” No amount of distinguishing or parsing can alter the clear rule of law intended to clarify the duties of all parties to ensure that rights to appeal will not be lost on procedural technicalities. Ashcraft is inviting this Court to overrule the Legislature’s unambiguous language and the controlling interpretation by the Supreme Court.
III. E-filing is no substitute for compliance with section 21.049.
Failing to demonstrate that the Legislature did not intend for section 21.049 to apply to both “parties” and that the Supreme Court did not intend for the statute’s “mandatory” certified mail notice requirement to “toll” the time for the statutes filing objections, Ashcraft claims that the Supreme Court intended for its e-filing Rule of Civil Procedure to trump the Legislature’s requirements in section 21.049. (AppelleeBr:52-56.) Ashcraft’s end-run around, the statute’s “mandatory” notice requirement is condemned by these barriers:
[*9]A. The e-filing rule did not purport to repeal section 21.049.
Buried at the bottom of footnote 4, Ashcraft’s brief notes the obvious – in a conflict between statutes and rules, “the statute prevails” unless the rule . . . “repeals the statute” as provided by section 22.004 of the Texas Government Code. (AppelleeBr:54 n.4). That did not happen here.
Under section 22.004 of the Texas Government Code, for a rule to repeal a statute the Texas Supreme Court is required to “file with the secretary of state a list of each article or section of general law or each part of an article or section of general law that is repealed or modified in any way.” See TEX. GOV’T CODE §22.004(c).
Section 21.049 of the Texas Property Code was not included in the list of statutes repealed by the adoption of the amendments to Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See The Supreme Court of Tex., Misc. Docket No. 13-9165,
38 Tex. Reg. 9683, 9683-84 (2013) (adopting amendments to Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure). Accordingly, the mandatory notice requirements of section 21.049 control over Rule 21(f)(10) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
[*10]See Few v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 463 S.W.2d 424, 425 (Tex. 1971) (“[Where a] rule of the court conflicts with a legislative enactment, the rule must yield.”).
Thus, as a matter of law, e-filing did not repeal the mandatory form of notice required by section 21.049. Ashcraft is asking this Court to violate the separation of powers at the heart of our Constitution.
B. There is no evidence of notice by e-service.
Equally fatal to Ashcraft’s judgment is his inability to point to evidence supporting the bogus legal positions he is asking this Court to take.
First, and most telling, Ashcraft consistently cites only to findings of fact in response to Copano’s challenge that there is no evidence to support those findings of fact. There is simply no evidence to support Ashcraft’s claim (and the trial court’s findings) that Copano’s counsel received notice of the commissioner’s award from the clerk by e-service. If such evidence existed it was Ashcraft’s duty to get it into the record. He did not.
Second, Ashcraft’s attempt to shift the burden of proof to Copano, to “deny” his unproven claim that the clerk e-served notice of the award, (AppelleeBr:43) should be seen for what it is – an admission of his failure to satisfy the legal sufficiency standard of review. Absence of evidence is no evidence.[2]
2 A “case cannot be sustained when it depends wholly upon the failure of defendant, who is shown to be in possession of the facts, to disprove plaintiff’s claim. To hold otherwise would be to abrogate the rule which places the burden upon a plaintiff to make out his case. Until this burden is discharged by evidence produced by plaintiff sufficient prima facie to make out the Third, Ashcraft violates the fundamental requirements for stipulations by attempting to transform a “discussion” at a hearing where no record was kept into “stipulations” memorialized in findings of fact. (AppelleeBr:57.) Stipulations are governed by Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Shepherd v. Ledford, 926 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ granted) aff’d and remanded, 962 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. 1998); see also Tutson v. Upchurch, 203 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, pet. denied) (providing that a concession that did not comport with Rule 11 was unenforceable). Rule 11 requires a stipulation either to be in writing, signed, and filed of record, or made in open court and entered of record. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11.
[*11]“Parties in open court are allowed to narrow the issues presented to the trial court, provided they do so by a signed written agreement that is filed in the trial record. A ‘stipulation’ that is made pursuant to rule 11 is defined as an agreement, admission, or concession made in a judicial proceeding by the parties or their attorneys about a matter that is incident to the trial.” Shepherd, 926 S.W.2d at 410 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
case alleged by him, the defendant is not required to offer any evidence, and his failure to do so cannot, under any circumstances, be regarded as any evidence of the truth of plaintiffs claim.” Tex. Co. v. Charles Clarke & Co., 182 S.W. 351, 353-54 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915, writ dism’d).
[*12]IV. There is no uncertainty of title.
Ashcraft’s ultimate argument, that interpreting section 21.049 and John as written will open the floodgates of “title uncertainty,” is belied by the last quarter century of practice under John (and by common sense). (See AppelleeBr:50-51.)
Titles are no more uncertain today than they were in 1992 when John tolled filing objections until district clerks comply with the mandatory duty imposed by section 21.049. The bench and bar alike have long known that the receipt of notice by certified mail starts the clock for objection. And all parties, in addition to the judge that appointed the commissioners, have an interest in seeing that the clerk does her job so judicial proceedings can either enter judgment on the award or challenge it.
That is why Copano went to the trouble of literally spelling out the clerk’s duties in bold-face typeset. (CR:29.) This is not a case of a condemnor laying behind a log to achieve some imagined advantage. This case is an attempt to bar an appeal by using a procedural technicality that was eliminated by the Supreme Court nearly 25 years ago.
[*13]CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Ashcraft failed to produce legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s denial of jurisdiction. Denial of jurisdiction was prohibited by the plain language of section 21.049 and Supreme Court precedent construing it. Copano was entitled to rely on the Supreme Court’s unequivocal holding that the time for filing objections was tolled for all parties. Mr. Ashcraft is not just inviting this Court to snub unambiguous legislation and controlling Supreme Court precedent – he is inviting this Court to do so in order to prevent judicial review that is at the heart of Texas citizens’ rights to judicial redress. The trial court’s judgment and order must be reversed.
Respectfully submitted, LOCKE LORD LLP
By: /s/ Charles R. “Skip” Watson, Jr. Charles R. “Skip” Watson, Jr. State Bar No. 20967500 [email protected] Daniel Durell State Bar No. 24078450 [email protected] 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 305-4700 (Telephone) (512) 305-4800 (Facsimile) Christopher Dove State Bar No. 24032138 [email protected] Ken McKay State Bar No. 13690835 [email protected] A. Antroy Arreola State Bar No. 24006769 [email protected] Harry Holmes Thompson State Bar No. 24088527 [email protected] LOCKE LORD LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 2800 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 226-1200 (Telephone) (713) 223-3717 (Facsimile) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
[*14]15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this Reply Brief contains 3,047 words (excluding the sections excepted under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1)). /s/ Charles R. “Skip”Watson, Jr. Charles R. “Skip” Watson, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 29, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via EFileTx.Gov e-service upon the following: Vincent L. Marable III John T. McDowell [email protected] [email protected] PAUL WEBB, P.C. Kacy J. Shindler 221 N. Houston [email protected] Wharton, Texas 77488 MCDOWELL WELLS, LLP (979) 532-5331 (Telephone) 603 Avondale Street (979) 532-2902 (Facsimile) Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 655-9595 (Telephone) (713) 655-7868 (Facsimile) Danny Shindler [email protected] MCDOWELL WELLS, LLP 2232 Avenue G Bay City, Texas 77414 (979) 245-4666 (Telephone) (979) 244-5342 (Facsimile) Counsel for Appellee /s/ Charles R. “Skip” Watson, Jr. Charles R. “Skip” Watson, Jr.
[*16]HYPERLINKED MATERIAL Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362
Nonprofit organization that received public funds for services provided to city under 468 S.W.3d 51 quid pro quo contract, which services were Supreme Court of Texas. designed enhance economic development, was Greater Houston Partnership, Petitioner, not “supported in whole or in part by public v. funds,” and thus, was not “government body,” Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General; within meaning of Texas Public Information Act (TPIA); funds received from city constituted and Jim Jenkins, Respondents. compensation for services rendered under No. 13–0745 | Argued March 25, 2015 contract, organization received only small | OPINION DELIVERED: June 26, 2015 portion of its annual revenues from contract, organization would still continue to operate and Synopsis perform same services without public funds. Background: Private nonprofit organization that received Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.003(1)(A). public funds from city pursuant to quid pro quo contract brought action against Attorney General seeking declaratory Cases that cite this headnote judgment that it was not “government body” within meaning of Texas Pubic Information Act. Petitioner whose records [2] Records request organization denied intervened. The District Court, Judicial enforcement in general Travis County, 98th Judicial District, Scott H. Jenkins, 326 Records J., entered judgment for Attorney General and ordered 326II Public Access disclosure of records requested. Organization appealed, and 326II(B) General Statutory Disclosure Austin Court of Appeals, 407 S.W.3d 776, affirmed. Petition Requirements for review was granted. 326k61 Proceedings for Disclosure 326k63 Judicial enforcement in general Whether an entity is a “governmental body” whose records are subject to disclosure under the [Holding:] The Supreme Court, Guzman, J., held that private Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) presents a organization was not “supported in whole or in part by matter of statutory construction that the appellate public funds,” and thus, was not “government body,” within court reviews de novo. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § meaning of TPIA. 552.003(1)(A).
Cases that cite this headnote Reversed and rendered. Boyd, J., filed dissenting opinion in which Johnson and [3] Statutes Willett, JJ., joined. Language and intent, will, purpose, or policy Statutes Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary, or West Headnotes (15) Common Meaning 361 Statutes [1] Records 361III Construction Agencies or custodians affected 361III(A) In General 326 Records 361k1078 Language 326II Public Access 361k1080 Language and intent, will, purpose, or 326II(B) General Statutory Disclosure policy Requirements 361 Statutes 326k51 Agencies or custodians affected 361III Construction
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 361III(B) Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary, or court recognizes and applies only the meanings Common Meaning that are consistent with the statutory scheme as 361k1091 In general a whole. When interpreting a statute, the court's primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the Cases that cite this headnote Legislature's intent without unduly restricting or expanding the act's scope, and the court [6] Statutes seeks that intent first and foremost in the plain In general; factors considered language of the text. Statutes
1 Cases that cite this headnote or in part. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.003(1) (A). [14] Statutes Cases that cite this headnote Associated terms and provisions; noscitur a sociis [11] Statutes 361 Statutes Associated terms and provisions; noscitur a 361III Construction sociis 361III(E) Statute as a Whole; Relation of Parts to Whole and to One Another 361 Statutes 361k1159 Associated terms and provisions; 361III Construction noscitur a sociis © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 The canon of statutory construction “noscitur a body” subject to public disclosure of its private business sociis” that a word or phrase, especially one in a affairs under the Texas Public Information Act. In seeking list, should be known by the words immediately to promote the public's legitimate interest in transparent surrounding it, cannot be used to render express government, the Act imposes considerable disclosure statutory language meaningless. obligations on “governmental bod[ies].” Importantly, the statutory definition of “governmental body” extends only to Cases that cite this headnote “the part, section, or portion of an organization, corporation, commission, committee, institution, or agency that spends [15] Statutes or that is supported in whole or in part by public funds.” Superfluousness See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii) (emphasis 361 Statutes added). This operates to prevent nominally private entities 361III Construction whose work might otherwise qualify them as de facto 361III(E) Statute as a Whole; Relation of Parts to public agencies from circumventing the Act's disclosure Whole and to One Another requirements. This case requires us to decide whether the term 361k1156 Superfluousness “supported” encompasses private entities contracting at arm's When interpreting a statute, the court will length with the government to provide general and specific generally attempt to avoid treating statutory services or whether the term properly includes only those language as surplusage. entities that could not perform similar services without public funds and, are thus, sustained—in whole or part—by such Cases that cite this headnote funds. When a private entity enters into a contract and receives government funds in exchange for its services, the entity's *53 On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals right to conduct its affairs confidentially may be in for the Third District of Texas. Honorable Scott H. Jenkins, tension with the public's right to know how government Judge. funds are spent. Transparency, openness, and accountability in the government are all of fundamental importance. Attorneys and Law Firms However, these important policy objectives cannot extinguish the privacy rights properly belonging to private business Bill Aleshire, Aleshire Law PC, Jennifer S. Riggs, Riggs entities in Texas. By liberally authorizing public access to Aleshire & Ray, Austin, TX, Lynne Liberato, Polly B. Fohn, government records while simultaneously shielding private Haynes and Boone LLP, Houston, TX, for Petitioner. business from unwarranted interference, the Legislature Charles Roy, Daniel T. Hodge, First Asst. Attorney General, carefully balanced these *54 conflicting interests. Mindful David A. Talbot Jr., Consumer Protection, David C. Mattax, of the delicate equilibrium between these equally compelling James Edward Davis, Kimberly L. Fuchs, Matthew H. concerns, we conclude that the term “supported,” which helps Frederick, Assistant Solicitor General, Warren Kenneth define the breadth of the Act, unambiguously includes only Paxton Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Rosalind L. Hunt, those entities at least partially sustained by public funding. Office of Attorney General, Administrative Law Divison, Because the statutory language is unambiguous, we need not Austin, TX, Eric Lyf Yollick, Yollick Law Firm, P.C., The consider the accuracy or vitality of the test articulated in Woodlands, TX, for Respondents. Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 850 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1988), which the Attorney General's Open Records Opinion Division has traditionally applied to private entities in cases involving open-record requests. JUSTICE GUZMAN delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT, JUSTICE GREEN, Here, Greater Houston Partnership, a nonprofit corporation JUSTICE LEHRMANN, JUSTICE DEVINE, and JUSTICE providing economic-development services to the City and BROWN joined. other clients pursuant to quid pro quo contracts, contests The question presented here is whether a private entity whether it is a “governmental body” in whole or in part. operating like a chamber of commerce is a “governmental Applying Kneeland, the Attorney General and lower courts © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 held that it is. We hold, however, that Greater Houston to imply that [GHP] is subject to the Texas Public Information Partnership is not a “governmental body” under the Texas Act.” Public Information Act because it is not wholly or partially sustained by public funds; we therefore reverse the court of The instant suit arose from a May 2008 request Houston-area appeals' judgment and render judgment for Greater Houston resident Jim Jenkins submitted to GHP in which he sought Partnership. “a copy of the check register for [GHP] for *55 all checks issued for the year 2007.” Jenkins grounded his request in the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA), claiming that “[p]ublic records show that [GHP] is an organization that spends or I. Factual and Procedural Background that is supported in whole or in part by public funds,” and Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) is a private, nonprofit GHP is, therefore, “subject to the Public Information Act in corporation that promotes regional economic growth and an the same manner as a governmental body.” See TEX. GOV'T attractive business climate for a ten-county area centered CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii) (defining “governmental body” around Houston, Texas. GHP's stated purpose is to enhance for purposes of the TPIA). economic prosperity, facilitate business relocation and expansion, encourage international outreach initiatives, and GHP objected to Jenkin's request and did not disclose the provide strategic planning to advocate for “the improvement information. GHP acknowledged it received public funds of commercial, industrial, agricultural, civic, and cultural from the City but disagreed it qualified as a “governmental affairs” in the Houston region. In furtherance of this objective, body” under the TPIA because the public funds were GHP provides consulting, event planning, and marketing compensation for vendor services provided pursuant to services (including advertising and market research) to its an arm's-length contract with the City. The City's annual roughly 2,100 member companies on a contractual basis. payments under the contract amounted to less than 8% of GHP also hosts numerous networking and professional GHP's total annual revenue; member contributions, on the development events, including several weekly GHP Council other hand, totaled more than 90% of its revenue. GHP further meetings on topics relevant to the regional economy. GHP noted that of the roughly 2,100 companies that comprise its operates on an annual budget of approximately $11.7 million, membership, only four could be described as governmental and these funds emanate primarily from membership revenue. bodies. Refusing to disclose the requested information, GHP In short, GHP functions much like thousands of chambers referred the matter to the Texas Attorney General as required of commerce across the nation that promote municipal and under the TPIA. See id. §§ 552.301(a), .307. regional economies. In an informal letter ruling, the Attorney General's Open Consistent with its business model, GHP contracted to Records Division agreed with Jenkins, and concluded that provide consulting, event planning, and marketing services GHP was a “governmental body” subject to the TPIA's to the City of Houston, pursuant to an “Agreement for disclosure requirements specifically with respect to the 2007 Professional Services.” GHP and the City signed similar contract with the City. 1 Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2008–16062; agreements annually for several years, including 2007 and see also TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.306. In reaching this 2008, the time periods at issue here. The contracts included conclusion, the Attorney General determined that GHP's a “Scope of Services” exhibit that delineated, under general operations were “supported” by the City because: (1) GHP headers, the specific services that GHP would provide to provided vague and indefinite services to the City aimed at the City. Under these contracts, GHP received quarterly advancing the City's overall economic development; (2) GHP payments in arrears contingent upon the City's approval of and the City shared a common purpose and objective centered performance reports detailing the particular services GHP around the City's economy; and (3) GHP provided services provided in that quarter. If GHP failed to deliver the traditionally supplied by the government. Tex. Att'y Gen. contracted-for services to the City's satisfaction, the contracts OR2008–16062. authorized the City to pay GHP for the portion of services satisfactorily rendered. Notably, however, the two contracts 1 GHP did not claim any exemptions from mandatory differed in one significant respect: the 2008 contract expressly disclosure and only challenged that it is a governmental provided that “[n]othing in this Agreement shall be construed body subject to the TPIA in the first instance. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 In response to the Attorney General's informal ruling, GHP context unambiguously dictated only the narrow construction filed a declaratory-judgment action against the Attorney of “supported” as applied to a private entity. Id. at 788 (Jones, General seeking a declaration that: (1) the Attorney General C.J., dissenting). lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and (2) even if jurisdiction was proper, GHP was not a “governmental body” under the 3 Derived from a handful of nascent open-records rulings, TPIA. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 552.3215(e), .321, .325(a). the Kneeland test originated in a 1986 case considering Shortly after GHP filed suit, Jenkins filed an additional whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association request seeking a copy of GHP's 2008 “disbursement registers and Southwest Athletic Conference were “supported in and/or check registers,” including the number, date, payee whole or in part by public funds” under the TPIA's name, amount, and purpose. Noting that GHP had already predecessor statute. See Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate filed suit regarding the 2007 check-register request, the Athletic Ass'n, 650 F.Supp. 1047 (W.D.Tex.1986), rev'd, Attorney General closed the second request without a finding 850 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1988). “Finding no dispositive and directed the trial court to resolve the dispute. Jenkins Texas jurisprudence on this issue,” the Fifth Circuit “closely examine[d] the opinions of the Texas Attorney intervened in the lawsuit shortly thereafter. See id. § 552.325 General” and discovered “helpful signs, albeit mixed (authorizing a requestor to intervene in the suit). signals, in the [Attorney General] opinions.” Id. at 228. Despite a rather tepid endorsement, and without After a bench trial, the trial court found GHP was a considering the statutory language, the court identified “governmental body” supported by public funds and ordered and applied “three distinct patterns of analysis in disclosure of the 2007 and 2008 check registers. 2 The trial opinions interpreting [the funding-source element] of the court determined that: Act” to private entities. Id. Those “patterns of analysis” provided the foundation for what became the three- *56 • GHP received public funds to provide economic pronged Kneeland test. development and promotion services for or on behalf of On appeal to this Court, GHP advances three principal the City; reasons why it is not a “governmental body” under the TPIA. First, GHP contends the phrase “supported ... by • GHP and the City shared the common purpose of public funds” unambiguously excludes the City's payments economic development and promotion; and to GHP. Second, even if the language is ambiguous, the • An agency-type relationship was created between GHP Court should reject the Kneeland test because it is unclear and the City of Houston. and not grounded in the statutory language. Third, GHP argues it is not “supported ... by public funds” even under 2 the Kneeland test. The Attorney General disputes all three The sole witness was Tracye McDaniel, GHP's executive vice president and chief operating officer. Documentary points. First, it contends that GHP plainly qualifies as a evidence included: six other contracts between GHP “governmental body” under the TPIA; limiting the statute's and other governmental bodies executed after 2008; the reach to entities that exist solely to carry out government contracts between the City and GHP for fiscal years functions would frustrate its purpose of openness, and GHP is 2007, 2008, and 2009; GHP's Articles of Incorporation; “supported” by public funds. Second, the Kneeland test is not Jenkins's requests for the 2007 and 2008 check registers; only the relevant framework in which to evaluate the TPIA's all four quarterly performance reports GHP submitted application to otherwise private entities, the Legislature has to the City in 2007; and performance reports GHP effectively endorsed the Kneeland test. 4 Third, the court submitted to other governmental bodies in 2007 and of appeals properly applied the three Kneeland elements to 2010. GHP, a “governmental body” subject to regulation under the The court of appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed TPIA. its judgment, albeit over a strongly worded dissent. 407 S.W.3d at 786, 787. Finding the phrase “supported in whole or 4 The Legislature has amended the TPIA several times in part by public funds” ambiguous, the lower court relied on without materially altering the funding-source element an extra-textual analytical construct known as the Kneeland of the “governmental body” definition. See Act of May test to conclude GHP qualified as a governmental body 29, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 1035, § 2, 1995 Tex. Gen. under the TPIA. 3 Id. at 782–83. The dissent criticized the Laws 5127, 5128; see also Act of May 20, 1991, 72nd court's reliance on the Kneeland test, finding the statutory Leg., R.S., ch. 306, § 5, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 1340, © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 1341–42; Act of May 17, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 633, supported in whole or in part by public funds” to the TPIA. § 2, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1194, 1194–95; Act of April Id. § 552.003(1)(A)(xii). The crux of our inquiry in this case 23, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 62, § 18.24, 1999 Tex. Gen. is the meaning of “supported in whole or in part by public Laws 127, 403; Act of May 24, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., funds.” The proper scope of this phrase is significant because ch. 1004, § 2, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 2186, 2187; Act of the consequences of being characterized as a governmental May 20, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 1276, § 9.014, 2003 body are considerable. The most obvious is that under section Tex. Gen. Laws 4158, 4218. 552.221 of the Texas Government Code, a “governmental *57 We granted GHP's petition for review to determine the body” must promptly produce “public information” on proper scope of the funding source element of the TPIA's request unless an exemption from disclosure applies and “governmental body” definition. is timely asserted. 7 See id. §§ 552.101–.123, .221; see also Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts v. Att'y Gen. of Tex., 354 S.W.3d 336, 341–48 (Tex.2010) (construing an II. Discussion exemption under the TPIA). The term “public information” broadly includes “information that is collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection A. Background Law with the transaction of official business” either: (1) “by a The Legislature enacted the Texas Open Records Act in 1973 governmental body” or (2) “for a governmental body and the to increase government transparency in the wake of public governmental body owns the information or has a right of scandals, including a massive stock-fraud imbroglio known access to it.” TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.002(a). as the Sharpstown scandal. 5 In 1993, the Open Records 7 To claim an exemption, a governmental body must, Act was recodified without substantive revision as the Texas within ten business days after receiving a request, Public Information Act. 6 Currently codified in Chapter 552 submit a written statement to the Attorney General of the Texas Government Code, the TPIA's stated policy explaining why the information should be withheld and objectives are to provide accountability and transparency request an Attorney General opinion. TEX. GOV'T in government by establishing mechanisms to foster public CODE § 552.301(a), (b). If the Attorney General rules access to government records. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ that the Act does not exempt the information from 552.001–.353. Importantly, an entity's disclosure obligations required disclosure, the governmental body must make under the TPIA hinge on whether it is in fact a “governmental it available to the requesting party or seek a judicial body.” determination that the information does not have to be disclosed. Id. §§ 552.3215(e), .324, .325(a); see also 5 City of Garland v. Dall. Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, See Act of May 19, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 356 (Tex.2000). If the governmental body refuses to 424, § 1–16, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1112, 1112–18 disclose the requested information, the Attorney General (codified at TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. art. 6252–17a); may seek to compel disclosure through a mandamus see generally Mutscher v. State, 514 S.W.2d 905, proceeding. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.321. 910–11 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (summarizing events of Sharpstown scandal). 6 Act of May 4, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 268, § 1, 1993 *58 B. Statutory Construction Tex. Gen. Laws 583, 986 (codified at TEX. G OV'T [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] GHP argues that as a private CODE §§ 552.001–.353). entity, it is not subject to the TPIA's disclosure requirements The TPIA defines a “governmental body” as one of twelve because it does not qualify as a “governmental body” under different types of entities. See id. § 552.003(1)(A). Most the statute's plain language. GHP therefore contends that it of the entities listed in section 552.003(1)(A) are identified is entitled to seek the privacy protections typically afforded quite precisely; for example, a “school district board of to nongovernmental entities. Determining whether GHP is a trustees” is statutorily defined as a “governmental body.” Id. “governmental body” whose records are subject to disclosure § 552.003(1)(A)(v). Others are more amorphous, including under the TPIA presents a matter of statutory construction that the section at issue here, which subjects “the part, section, we review de novo. City of Garland v. Dall. Morning News, or portion of an organization, corporation, commission, 22 S.W.3d 351, 357 (Tex.2000). When interpreting a statute, committee, institution, or agency that spends or that is © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the and only one of those definitions is reasonable when the Legislature's intent without unduly restricting or expanding statute is considered as a whole. Reading the definition of the Act's scope. City of Lorena v. BMTP Holdings, L.P., “governmental body” in its contextual environment—as we 409 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.2013). We seek that intent first are bound to do—reveals that the TPIA applies only to entities and foremost in the plain meaning of the text. Id.; see also acting as the functional equivalent *59 of a governmental Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 body that are “sustained” at least in part, by public funds. S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex.2010). “Undefined terms in a statute In reaching this conclusion, we remain ever mindful of the are typically given their ordinary meaning, but if a different statute's liberal-construction clause. But liberal-construction or more precise definition is apparent from the term's use objectives do not permit a construction of the Act untethered in the context of the statute, we apply that meaning.” TGS– from its statutory moorings. NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Tex.2011). “However, we will not give an undefined term Familiar interpretive guides and established canons of a meaning that is out of harmony or inconsistent with other construction inform our reading of section 552.003(1)(A) terms in the statute.” State v. $1,760.00 in U.S. Currency, (xii). In determining the meaning of “supported ... by 406 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Tex.2013). Therefore, even if an public funds,” we begin, as we must, with the statute's undefined term has multiple meanings, we recognize and plain language. Tex. Lottery Comm'n, 325 S.W.3d at 635. apply only the meanings that are consistent with the statutory Common English words frequently have a number of scheme as a whole. Id. at 180–81. We only resort to rules dictionary definitions, some quite abstruse and esoteric, of construction or extrinsic aids when a statute's words are others more comprehensible and commonplace. See, e.g., ambiguous. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d $1,760.00 in U.S. Currency, 406 S.W.3d at 180–81 (noting 433, 437 (Tex.2009). Finally, in construing the TPIA, we are that “novelty” has multiple dictionary definitions). Not mindful of the legislative mandate that the TPIA be “liberally surprisingly, “supported,” the key term here, is subject to construed in favor of granting a request for information.” at least six disparate definitions in its verb form alone, TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.001(b). with many of those including more nuanced sub-definitions. See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 2297 As an initial matter, we observe the parties' agreement that (2002). By reading the term in context, however, we can GHP is a “governmental body” only if it, or a “part, section, narrow the universe of possible definitions to the most or portion” of it “is supported in whole or in part by public apposite. See TGS–NOPEC Geophysical Co., 340 S.W.3d at funds.” It is likewise undisputed that GHP receives “public 439. funds.” 8 The parties disagree, however, on the meaning and application of the statutory phrase, “supported in whole or [8] As always, we are cognizant of the “fundamental in part by.” GHP argues that the TPIA cannot reasonably be principle of statutory construction and indeed of language interpreted to apply to privately-controlled corporations that itself that words' meanings cannot be determined in isolation perform services under quid pro quo government contracts. but must be drawn from the context in which they are used.” According to GHP, the Legislature unambiguously intended Id. at 441. We must therefore analyze the reasonableness of “supported in whole or in part by public funds” to identify each definition in light of the statutory context. See Jaster v. entities that were created or exist to carry out government Comet II Const., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex.2014); see functions and whose existence are maintained in whole or also R.R. Comm'n v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean in part with public funds. Conversely, the Attorney General Water, 336 S.W.3d 619, 628 (Tex.2011) ( “We generally declares the statutory language ambiguous because it could avoid construing individual provisions of a statute in isolation reasonably be read to apply to any contract between the from the statute as a whole.”). The statute's first contextual government and a private entity. We agree with GHP. clue emerges from the words immediately surrounding “supported.” To avoid disharmony with the rest of the statute, 8 “supported” must bear reference to “public funds,” so it “Public funds” refers to the “funds of the state or of is clear that non-monetary definitions of “supported” make a governmental subdivision of the state.” TEX. GOV'T little sense in context. See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L CODE § 552.003(5). DICTIONARY 921 (2002) (defining “funds” as “available [7] “Supported” is an undefined term with multiple and pecuniary resources”). Applying this limitation, we winnow varied dictionary definitions. However, only two of the definitions are even remotely possible as applied to the TPIA © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 the field down to two potential meanings for “supported,” with hundreds of clients would qualify as a “governmental both of which are faithful to the statutory context: body” merely by virtue of getting paid for selling office supplies to a single state office. See 407 S.W.3d at 781. Every (1) to pay the costs of: maintain; to supply with the means company must expend funds to stay in business; it would be of maintenance (as lodging, food or clothing) or to earn or impossible to conclude that any business compensated for furnish funds for maintaining; or providing goods or services to a governmental entity pursuant to a quid pro quo contract was not using public funds to (2) to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence pay for necessities. Thus, any entity doing business with the of: serve as the source of material or immaterial supply, government would be a “governmental body.” nourishment, provender, fuel, raw material, or sustenance of. “Quid pro quo” means “[a]n action or thing that is exchanged See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 2297 for another action or thing of more or less equal value.” See (2002); accord BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1668 (10th BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1443 (10th ed. 2009). As the ed. 2009) (defining the term “support” to mean “[s]ustenance dissent agrees, the Legislature did not intend for the statute or maintenance”). In statutory context, “supported” must thus to reach entities involved in quid pro quo transactions with mean sustenance, maintenance, or both. the government, and it is undisputed that a fair reading of the statute cannot countenance such a result. 407 S.W.3d at 789. Another contextual clue derives from the Act's purpose. The We reject any reading of “supported” that would injudiciously statutory context indicates that all section 552.001(a) entities apply public transparency laws to private businesses merely are either the government or its functional equivalent. First, because they receive public funds under a contract with the the statute provides the public with “complete information government. Accordingly, the “maintenance” definition of about the affairs of government and the official acts of public “supported” is not textually viable. officials and employees.” TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.001(a). The stated purpose of permitting access to this information [9] [10] In contrast, defining “supported” as “sustenance” is to allow the public to “retain control over the instruments ensures that only an entity, or its “part, section or portion,” they have created.” Id. A reasonable definition of “supported” whose existence is predicated on the continued receipt of must be compatible with this stated purpose. The statute government funds would qualify as a “governmental body.” also specially *60 defines the term “governmental body.” Among the meanings of “sustain” are “to cause to continue; In defining that term, the Legislature carefully omitted any to keep up; to carry or withstand; to nourish; to prevent broad reference to private entities, instead including private from sinking or giving way.” See WEBSTER'S THIRD entities insofar as they are “supported ... by public funds.” NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 2304 (2002); see also BLACK'S Compare id. with FLA. STAT. § 119.011(2). In light of this LAW DICTIONARY 1676 (10th ed. 2009) (defining omission, which we presume the Legislature purposefully “sustain” to mean “to nourish and encourage”). Applying selected, the scope of the term “governmental body,” as this construction, the universe of private entities constituting applied to private entities, must be filtered through the Act's governmental bodies is obviously more circumscribed purpose and function of allowing access to instrumentalities because only a small segment of private entities could fairly of government. Thus, the Act only applies to private entities be considered to be sustained by the government. To be acting as the functional equivalent of the government. See “sustained” by public funds suggests the existence of a TGS–NOPEC Geophysical Co., 340 S.W.3d at 439. financially dependent relationship between the governmental body and a private entity or its subdivision redolent of that Defining “supported” to mean “maintenance” is untenable between a parent and child or principal and agent. Financial because doing so risks sweeping any private entity that dependency need not be absolute, however. Rather, the received any public funds within the definition of a government could be one of several contributing sources. But “governmental body.” See 407 S.W.3d at 781 (citing Tex. sustenance implies that if the government ceased to provide Ass'n of Appraisal Dists., Inc. v. Hart, 382 S.W.3d 587, financial support, the entity would be unable to meet its 591–92 (Tex.App.–Austin 2012, no pet.)). To resurrect the financial obligations. Unquestionably, a *61 private entity example provided by the court of appeals, if we equate would qualify under a financially dependent construction of “supported” with supplying an entity with a means by which “supported” if it could not pursue its mission and objectives the entity can pay for necessities, then even a paper vendor without the receipt of public funds, even if that funding © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 only partially financed the entity's endeavors. In short, an entity “supported” by public funds would not just receive First, the statute expressly identifies as a “governmental government funds; it would require them to operate in whole body” the governing board of a nonprofit water supply or in part. 9 If we construe “supported ... by public funds” or wastewater service corporation that is organized under in this manner, we must conclude GHP is not “supported” Chapter 67 of the Texas Water Code and exempt from by public funds because it receives only a small portion of ad valorem taxation under the Texas Tax Code. See TEX. its revenue from government contracts. And even if these GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(ix). A nonprofit corporation government contracts were eliminated, it could continue to of this type is authorized to engage in several traditional operate given the substantial revenue derived from other governmental functions, such as the right to build and non-governmental sources. Moreover, GHP could and would operate water- and waste-treatment facilities and sell water continue to promote the greater Houston economy to advance to political subdivisions, private entities, or individuals. See its own interests and those of its more than 2,000 non- TEX. WATER CODE § 67.002. Additionally, depending government members. GHP, in sum, does not require public on the size of the county it serves, a nonprofit water funds and thus, is not sustained by public funds. or waste-water service provider may even establish and enforce “customer water conservation practices” through the 9 assessment *62 of “reasonable penalties as provided in the It is possible, of course, that a portion of a private corporation's tariff.” See id. § 67.011(a)(5), (b). By virtue entity could be sustained by public funds even where the of their special powers and privileges, these nonprofit utility private entity, as a whole, is not. In such instances, if the department or division is sustained by public funds, operators essentially function as quasi-public corporations the division may be subject to the TPIA's disclosure servicing the public. See Garwood Irr. Co. v. Williams, 243 obligations. Here, GHP did not segregate funds, and S.W.2d 453, 456 (Tex.Civ.App.–Galveston 1951, writ ref'd it argued that such segregation would be logistically n.r.e.). impossible. [11] Because only one definition fits the statutory context, The second potentially private “governmental body” we conclude that “supported ... by public funds” must identified in the statute is a nonprofit corporation eligible be appropriately defined to only include those entities to receive federal funding, in the form of block grants, “sustained” by public funds—thereby ensuring that the statute for anti-poverty programs at the state level. TEX. GOV'T encompasses only those private entities dependent on the CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xi). Under this federal initiative, a public fisc to operate as a going concern. Although not nonprofit may receive funds if it demonstrates “expertise dispositive, our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that this in providing training to individuals and organizations on construction of the term “supported” is consistent with the methods of effectively addressing the needs of low-income scope and nature of the eleven other types of entities more families and communities” through a detailed application clearly described as a “governmental body” in the same process. 10 42 U.S.C. § 9913(c)(2) (2012); see also provision. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A). The OFFICE OF CMTY. SERVS., U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH canon of statutory construction known as noscitur a sociis & HUMAN SERVS., COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK —“it is known by its associates”—holds that the meaning GRANT STATE AND ELIGIBLE ENTITY TECHNICAL of a word or phrase, especially one in a list, should be ASSISTANT SERVICES 16–17(2015) (listing eligibility known by the words immediately surrounding it. See TGS– requirements). 11 A section 552.003(i)(A)(xi) “governmental NOPEC Geophysical Co., 340 S.W.3d at 441. We rely on body” must be “authorized by this state to serve a geographic this principle to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so area of the state.” See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A) broad that it is incommensurate with the statutory context. (xi). This requirement presupposes that the nonprofit has a Accordingly, in evaluating the breadth of “supported in whole close working relationship with the state government. See or in part by public funds,” we may consider the scope of 10 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 5.211 (requiring an authorized the enumerated categories preceding it. See Fiess v. State nonprofit to submit monthly performance reports to the state Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 750–51 (Tex.2006). Of the agency monitoring the program). eleven other examples of a “governmental body” listed in the statutory definition of the term, two stand out as arguably the 10 The federal program is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ most analogous to a private nonprofit like GHP. Thus, we 9901-9926 (2012) and is administered by the U.S. briefly consider each in comparison. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 Department of Health and Human Services Office of remaining informed so that they may retain control Community Service. See 42 U.S.C. § 9912 (2012). over the instruments they have created.” Jackson v. State Office of Admin. Hearings, 351 11 Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/ S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex.2011) (citations omitted). files/HHS-2015-ACF-OCS-ET-1007_1.pdf. [13] *63 In sum, we define “supported in whole or in The foregoing examples describe ostensibly private entities part by public funds” to include only those private entities deputized by the government to provide services traditionally or their sub-parts sustained, at least in part, by public funds, considered governmental prerogatives or responsibilities. meaning they could not perform the same or similar services Thus, although nominally private, each is in fact acting without the public funds. If GHP (as a private entity that as a quasi-public entity performing a core governmental receives government funds even while not being supported function. There is a significant difference between an entity by them) presents the hard case, entities on the ends of the of this nature and one like GHP, and our construction of spectrum—those that receive no government money, and “supported in whole or in part by public funds” reflects as those that receive only government money—will obviously much by capturing only those entities acting as the functional present much more straightforward questions. Determining equivalent of the government. See Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 751. whether a partially funded entity qualifies as a “governmental body” will likely require case-specific analysis and a close [12] Our construction of the term “supported” remains examination of the facts. Nonetheless, we recognize as a faithful to the TPIA's liberal-construction clause. See TEX. general proposition that an entity, like GHP, that does not GOV'T CODE § 552.001(b) (“This chapter shall be liberally depend on any particular revenue source to survive—public construed in favor of granting a request for information.”). or private—is not sustained even in part by government funds. We have consistently recognized this clause expresses an important statement of legislative purpose, and we continue to adhere to it today. See, e.g., City of Garland, 22 S.W.3d at 364 (“Unlike the [Freedom of Information Act], our C. Other Jurisdictions Act contains a strong statement of public policy favoring While our construction of the TPIA is supported by a public access to governmental information and a statutory plain-meaning reading of the statute, an examination of mandate to construe the Act to implement that policy and to similar open-records statutes from other jurisdictions is also construe it in favor of granting a request for information.”). instructive. In states where open-records acts apply to entities Still, even a liberal construction must remain grounded “supported in whole or in part by public funds,” our sister in the statute's language and cannot overwhelm contextual courts have unanimously construed the phrase to exclude, indicators limiting public intrusion into the private affairs of as a general matter, private entities receiving public funds nongovernmental entities. 12 pursuant to quid pro quo agreements without regard to whether such an agreement is the entity's only funding 12 There is little to support the view that open-records laws source. See, e.g., Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Ass'n, were envisioned as tools to pry open the sensitive records Inc. v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 208, 214 of private entities or to function as a private discovery (Ind.1991) (“In situations involving a quid pro quo, that is, tool. See N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 measured goods or services given in exchange for payment U.S. 214, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978) based on identifiable quantities of goods or services, a private (describing the Freedom of Information Act). Instead, we entity would not be transformed into a public entity because have recognized: it would not be maintained and supported by public funds.”); The Texas Legislature promulgated the TPIA Weston v. Carolina Research & Dev. Found., 303 S.C. with the express purpose of providing the public “complete information about the affairs of 398, 401 S.E.2d 161, 165 (1991) (“[T]his decision does not government and the official acts of public officials mean that the [open-records act] would apply to business and employees.” The Act is aimed at preserving enterprises that receive payment from public bodies in return a fundamental tenet of representative democracy: for supplying specific goods or services on an arms length “that the government is the servant and not the basis.”); Adams Cnty. Record v. Greater N.D. Ass'n, 529 master of the people.” At its core, the TPIA reflects N.W.2d 830, 836 (N.D.1995) (“When there is a bargained- the public policy that the people of Texas “insist on for exchange of value, a quid pro quo, the entity is not supported by public funds.”). Additionally, even in those © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 states whose open-records acts fail to define “governmental controlled corporation” and subject to FOIA disclosure body” or an equivalent term, our sister courts still narrowly requirements only if the private entity is also subjected to construe the statute to include only private entities that have “extensive, detailed, and virtually day-to-day supervision” by a relationship so intertwined with the government that they the government. Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169, 180, 100 are the “functional equivalent of a governmental agency.” S.Ct. 977, 63 L.Ed.2d 293 (1980). The federal supervision Memphis Publ'g Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Servs., must be “substantial ... and not just the exercise of regulatory Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67, 78–79 (Tenn.2002); see also State ex rel. authority necessary to assure compliance with the goals of Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, 854 the federal grant.” Id. at 180 n.11, 100 S.Ct. 977. Thus, N.E.2d 193, 198–99 (2006). narrowly defining “supported in whole or in part by public funds” under Texas law is consistent with the approach of Recognizing the right of private businesses to conduct their other jurisdictions featuring similar acts and the United States affairs autonomously, at least one court has adopted a *64 Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal act on which the presumption that a private entity is not subject to an open- TPIA is based. records request absent clear and convincing evidence that the private entity is the functional equivalent of a governmental body. See, e.g., State ex rel Oriana House, Inc., 854 N.E.2d D. Response to the Dissent at 200. In Florida, the only state whose statute expressly includes private entities, the Florida Supreme Court narrowly [14] We briefly address some of the contentions in the interpreted its open-records act to exclude private entities dissenting opinion. Regarding statutory construction, there is merely providing professional services to a governmental little disagreement about the guiding principles and relevant body. See News & Sun–Sentinel Co. v. Schwab, Twitty & canons involved here, and we agree, of course, that the canon Hanser Architectural Group, Inc., 596 So.2d 1029, 1031 of noscitur a sociis “cannot be used to render express statutory (Fla.1992) (construing FLA. STAT. § 119.011(2)). In fact, of language meaningless.” Op. at 83 (Boyd, J., dissenting). those states with similar statutes, we have not encountered We disagree as to the proper implementation of the canon, one that has construed an open-records act to include a private however. The dissent asserts that the first eleven definitions entity providing specific and measurable vendor services to a of “governmental body” in the TPIA should be cabined off governmental body, even if that entity receives public funds. from the twelfth definition of that term because the twelfth We find it difficult to ignore this interpretative uniformity, definition “uses specific language, inherently different than especially considering the gravitas of the interests at stake. the language of the other definitions.” Id. at 82. The dissent, thus, argues that the nature of the first eleven definitions Our plain-meaning construction also comports with federal cannot inform the twelfth. We disagree. All twelve are precedent interpreting the federal analogue—the Freedom definitions of governmental bodies, and given that the twelfth of Information Act (FOIA). See Tex. Comptroller of Pub. definition is the most open-ended, blinders would be required Accounts, 354 S.W.3d at 342 (noting that because the to construe it in isolation *65 from its statutory predecessors. Legislature modeled the TPIA on the FOIA, federal precedent Separating the definitions in this way would not only be is persuasive in construing the Act). Under the FOIA, artificial, it would also deprive us of a key source of insight “agency,” the federal equivalent of “governmental body,” is into the parameters of the more expansive twelfth definition. defined to include: More significant, however, is the dissent's suggestion that any executive department, military the statute is ambiguous. The dissent, building on this department, Government corporation, imprudent reading, would look to Attorney General decisions Government controlled corporation, or and the Kneeland test for “further guidance.” Id. at 85. other establishment in the executive In canvassing the landscape of informal Attorney General branch of the Government (including rulings and divining instruction therefrom, the dissent the Executive Office of the President), resurrects Kneeland 's questionable methodology, which did or any independent regulatory agency. the same. And as that court itself noted, even if “[o]ne 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) (2012). In interpreting this broad may have no quarrel with the formulae,” “the direction language, the United States Supreme Court held that a private given is a mite uncertain.” Kneeland, 850 F.2d at 228. The entity receiving federal funding is considered a “government dissent finds Kneeland “persuasive” but we do not reach © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 that analysis because of our determination that the statutory visit target companies and pitch them on the City's business language unambiguously excludes GHP from qualifying as advantages. These services are specific and measurable and a “governmental body.” Nonetheless, we think it worth are the sort of quid pro quo exchanges typical of a vendor brief pause to note Kneeland 's questionable foundation, services contract in that industry. as it—along with the raft of informal Attorney General rulings that bookend the decision—constitute the “forty *66 Thus, we do not believe that the monetary payments years of legal interpretations” that we supposedly ignore due to GHP under the 2007 and 2008 agreements are in today's opinion. 13 Op. at 68 (Boyd, J., dissenting). “general or unrestricted payment[s] provided to subsidize But many of these rulings were informal and, as such or underwrite the entity's activities” rather than “specific lack any precedential value. Put simply, the weight of this measurable services.” Id. at 86. Even the dissent admits that legal authority is considerably less august than the dissent's some—but not all—of GHP's activities qualify as “specific formulation implies. measurable services,” so the disagreement here is more a matter of degree than anything else. 13 The Kneeland test gained prominence by happenstance The dissent's revised test would also require that “the funds rather than design. It derived from a single federal district be intended to promote a purpose, interest, or mission that court opinion based on five conclusory Attorney General opinions written without any attempt to construe the the governmental and private entities share and would both statutory language. After Kneeland issued, the Attorney pursue even in the absence of their contractual relationship.” General adopted the test without further analysis. Id. at 88. The dissent posits that a law firm may share a broad Thereafter, the lower courts used the Kneeland test goal with a client, but the firm's interest remains “transaction out of deference to the Attorney General, also without specific” in a way that GHP's engagement is not. Id. at 89. scrutinizing the test in light of the statutory text and At the risk of quibbling, we dispute that this metaphorical legislative intent embodied therein. We decline to defer dividing line is nearly that clear or marked. Many law firms to a test created without consideration of the statutory are hired not merely for a specific litigation matter but language. rather to provide more enduring and wide-ranging counsel. While the dissent purports to rehabilitate Kneeland, its And more importantly, while the dissent takes for granted revised test is at best a partial improvement. The revised that GHP and the City's interests are perfectly aligned (and test makes it virtually impossible for an entity that provides presumably always will be), that assumption is debatable. intangible deliverables, such as consulting, advertising, or For instance, although the vast majority of cities presumably legal services, to satisfy the “specific and measurable welcome financial investment, growth can prove politically services” prong of the test. The dissent portrays GHP as divisive—just witness the debates over gentrification that sharing only broad, amorphous goals with the City. Yet, grip many major cities experiencing explosive economic the “broad” contract language referenced by the dissent expansion. Regardless, the point is that GHP is hardly the actually refers to GHP's more general overarching objectives auxiliary and mirror of the City that the dissent portrays it to (essentially, these statements of objectives function as be, and the proposed revision of the Kneeland test will not titles under which specific obligations of the contract are significantly clarify this confused area of the law. delineated). Each broad objective is followed by a list of specific services GHP promised to provide to achieve [15] The dissent also contends that “the Court writes the those objectives. For example, GHP was hired “to identify words ‘in part’ completely out of the statutory definition.” new business opportunities, secure economic incentives and Id. at 79. Nothing so drastic is occurring here. The statute's increase outreach and recruitment activities to the region's “in part” language may envision a multi-division entity that targeted key industries to strengthen the City of Houston does business with the government, but not uniformly and as a competitive place to do business.” In furtherance of not across all units. For instance, one can conceptualize that objective, GHP is contractually obligated to develop a subdivision of a large corporation wholly funded by business relationships with the top twenty-five companies not government contracts; nevertheless, because the subdivision currently headquartered in the City; create and implement is only a small part of the large organization, the government a business-retention program to provide quick responses to business forms a relatively small portion of the corporation's companies in the City; and arrange and host ten recruiting total revenue. In this scenario, the organization may be trips, or “Signature Events,” for Houston-based executives to said to be supported “in part” by public funds. Moreover, © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 there may be more overlap between “in part” and the Applying the TPIA's plain and unambiguous language, we neighboring statutory language than the dissent allows. While hold that GHP is not “supported in whole or in part by we generally attempt to avoid treating statutory language public funds” and thus is not a “governmental body” under as surplusage, “there are times when redundancies are the TPIA. Because the relevant provisions of the TPIA precisely what the Legislature intended.” In re Estate of are unambiguous, we do not apply the analysis outlined in Nash, 220 S.W.3d 914, 917–18 (Tex.2007); see also In re Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 850 F.2d 224 City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328, 336 (Tex.2001) (noting (5th Cir. 1988), nor any other extra-textual construct. We that statutory redundancies may mean that “the Legislature therefore reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render repeated itself out of an abundance of caution, for emphasis, judgment for Greater Houston Partnership. or both”). Regardless of whether such drafting caution is at work here, the point remains that there are a host of possible explanations addressing the dissent's concerns. JUSTICE BOYD filed a dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICE JOHNSON and JUSTICE WILLETT joined. III. Conclusion JUSTICE BOYD, joined by JUSTICE JOHNSON and Amidst all the argument attempting to classify GHP as JUSTICE WILLETT, dissenting. a governmental body, it is worth recalling precisely what Forty-two years ago, the Texas Legislature passed what has GHP is not: GHP is not a government agency, nor is it become “widely regarded as the strongest and most successful a quasi-public agency specifically listed under the Texas open government law in the country.” 1 Just three years Government Code as a “governmental body.” GHP does later, in this Court's first opinion addressing the new Texas not rely on its government contracts to sustain itself as a Open Records Act, 2 we confirmed that it is the Legislature's going concern; as all parties acknowledge, the government policymaking role to balance “the public's right of access” funds it receives constitute a relatively minuscule portion of against “potential abuses of the right,” and the Court's role is *67 GHP's annual budget. The only way GHP can qualify merely “to enforce the public's right of access given by the as a “governmental body,” then, is if it can be said to be Act.” Indus. Found. of the S. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 “supported in whole or in part by public funds.” S.W.2d 668, 675 (Tex.1976). Balancing these interests, the Legislature decided that the Act should apply to “the part, GHP, like countless chambers of commerce nationwide, section, or portion” of any “organization [or] corporation ... provides marketing, consulting, and event-planning services that is supported in whole or in part by public funds.” TEX. to the City and other clients pursuant to quid pro quo GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii). That may be bad policy, contracts. Like the lobbying shops and law firms that also or it may be good policy, but it is the policy of Texas, and this populate the State payroll, GHP shares many common Court's only task is to enforce it. objectives with the City, but without more, such shared interests can hardly transform a service provider into 1 City of Dall. v. Abbott, 304 S.W.3d 380, 395 a government appendage. A private entity engaged in n.5 (Tex.2010) (Wainwright, J., dissenting); see economically delicate work should not be subjected to also CHARLES L. BABCOCK ET AL., OPEN invasive disclosure requirements merely because it counts GOVERNMENT GUIDE: OPEN RECORDS AND the government as one client among many. Transparency MEETINGS LAWS IN TEXAS 1–2 (6th ed. 2011) is a real concern, to be sure, and the TPIA's liberal- (describing Texas Public Information Act as “among the construction mandate reflects the depth of this interest. But strongest in the nation” and “among the most liberal liberal construction is not tantamount to boundless reach. Yet, in the United States”), available at http://www.rcfp.org/ even if not directly subject to disclosure obligations under the rcfp/orders/docs/ogg/TX.pdf. TPIA, GHP's transactions with the government are hardly in 2 Act of May 19, 1973, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 424, 1973 Tex. a black box; the City—which is indisputably a “governmental Gen. Laws 1112–18 (codified at TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. body”—must disclose information regarding its contractors, art. 6252–17a). In 1993, the Legislature codified the Act including GHP. in the Texas Government Code and renamed it the Texas Public Information Act. Act of May 4, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 268, § 1, secs. 552.001–.353, 1993 Tex. Gen. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 Laws 583, 594–607 (codified at TEX. G OV'T CODE §§ at issue, and the evidence here regarding the Partnership and 552.001–.353). its support. To enforce the Legislature's policy choice in this case, we must decide what it *68 means for a “part, section, or A. Requirements of the Act portion” of a corporation to be “supported in whole or in part by public funds.” See id. The Court adopts the narrowest The Public Information Act requires the “officer for public construction possible, identifying two requirements that information of a governmental body” 3 to “promptly produce appear nowhere in the statute's language. The Court's all- public information” upon request. TEX. GOV'T CODE § or-nothing construction is irreconcilable with the provision's 552.221(a). “Public information” means information “that is express inclusion of a “part, section, or portion” of an entity written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained under that is “supported in whole or in part by public funds.” See a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of id. (emphasis added). Striving to be faithful to the Act's plain official business,” either (1) “by a governmental body;” (2) language, mindful of its express mandate that courts construe “for a governmental body” if the governmental body it liberally in favor of access to information, and respectful owns the information, has a right of access to it, or of the many prior decisions of the Texas Attorneys General “spends or contributes public money for the purpose of charged with interpreting and enforcing the Act, I would hold writing, producing, collecting, assembling, or maintaining the that a “part, section, or portion” of a private organization information;” or (3) “by an individual officer or employee or corporation is “supported in whole or in part by public of a governmental body in the officer's or employee's funds” and thus a “governmental body” if it (1) receives official capacity and the information pertains to official public funds, (2) not as compensation or consideration paid business of the governmental *69 body.” Id. § 552.002(a). in exchange for “specific goods” or “specific measurable “Information is in connection with the transaction of official services,” but as a general or unrestricted payment provided business if the information is created by, transmitted to, to subsidize or underwrite the entity's activities, and (3) received by, or maintained by an officer or employee of those activities promote a purpose, interest, or mission that the governmental body in the officer's or employee's official the governmental and private entities share and would each capacity, or a person or entity performing official business or pursue even in the absence of their contractual relationship. a governmental function on behalf of a governmental body, Because the evidence establishes all three of these elements in and pertains to official business of the governmental body.” this case, I would hold on this record that the Greater Houston Id. § 552.002(a-1). Partnership is a governmental body. Because the Court holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent. 3 An “officer for public information” is the governmental body's chief administrative officer (or, in the case of a county, an elected county officer), and the head of each I. department within the governmental body is the officer's agent for purposes of complying with the Act. TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 552.201–.202. Background The Act does not require a governmental body to produce This case presents a single question of statutory construction: public information that is “considered to be confidential by what does the Texas Public Information Act mean when law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision.” it refers to a “part, section, or portion” of an entity Id. § 552.101. The Act itself provides numerous other that is “supported in whole or in part by public funds”? exceptions to its disclosure requirement, which include, Id. Purporting to rely on “[f]amiliar interpretive guides among other things, certain personnel records, id. § 552.102, and established canons of construction,” ante at 59, the litigation records, id. § 552.103, information that “would Court discards over forty years of legal interpretations and give advantage to a competitor or bidder,” id. § 552.104, announces a brand new interpretation that, at best, reflects the attorney-client information, id. § 552.107, trade secrets and Court's concerns instead of the Legislature's language. In light commercial financial information, id. § 552.110, personal of the Court's analysis, and to place the issue in perspective, and family information of governmental employees, id. I begin by highlighting the Act's relevant requirements, the § 552.117(a), and “information [that] relates to economic reasons for its enactment, prior constructions of the language development negotiations involving a governmental body © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 and a business prospect that the governmental body seeks TEX. , www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/about- to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of attorney-general-opinions (last visited June 22, 2015). the governmental body,” id. § 552.131(a). The Act does In addition, the Public Information Act authorizes and not allow a governmental body to unilaterally decide for requires the Attorney General to issue a “decision,” in the form of a “written opinion,” announcing itself whether it can withhold requested information. Instead, whether a governmental body may withhold information a governmental body that wishes to withhold information in response to a request under the Act. TEX. in response to a request must ask the Attorney General to GOV'T CODE §§ 552.301(a), .306(a), (b). Pursuant decide whether the information fits within one of the Act's to this authority, Attorneys General sometimes issue exceptions. Id. § 552.301(a). “open records decisions,” which “are formal opinions relating to the Public Information Act” that “usually It is difficult to overstate the Attorney General's role in address novel or problematic legal questions and are this process. The Act assigns to the Attorney General the signed by the Attorney General.” See Open Records duty to “maintain uniformity in the application, operation, Decisions (ORDS), OFFICE OF THE ATT'Y GEN. OF and interpretation” of the Act and authorizes the Attorney TEX. , www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/open-records- General to “publish any materials, including detailed and decisions-ords (last visited June 22, 2015). These comprehensive written decisions and opinions, that relate decisions are named numerically using the initials to or are based on this chapter.” Id. § 552.011. Upon “ORD” as a prefix. See id. More often, Attorneys General have resolved open records questions by issuing “open receipt of a governmental body's request for a decision, records letter rulings,” which “[u]nlike Open Records the Attorney General considers comments and arguments Decisions, [are] informal letter rulings ... applicable from any interested person, id. § 552.304(a), and then must only to the specific documents and circumstances “promptly render a decision” on whether the requested surrounding them[.]” See Open Records Letter Rulings information is within one of the Act's exceptions, id. § (ORLs), OFFICE OF THE ATT'Y GEN. OF TEX. , 552.306(a); see also id. § 552.306(b) (requiring the Attorney www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/open/index_orl.php (last General to issue “a written opinion” and provide a copy visited June 22, 2015). These rulings are named to the requestor). Through its Open Records Division, the numerically using the initials “OR” and the year of Attorney General's Office issues thousands of open records issuance as a prefix. See id. Through the years, Texas letter rulings every year, including more than 23,000 in 2014, Attorneys General have utilized all three methods to address open records issues, including the issue of what and it is on pace to surpass that number this year. 4 If a constitutes a “governmental body” under the Act. governmental body fails to *70 request an Attorney General decision when and as required, the requested information “is If a governmental body refuses to request an Attorney presumed to be subject to required public disclosure and must General decision or refuses to produce public information be released unless there is a compelling reason to withhold or information that the Attorney General has determined the information.” Id. § 552.302. is public and not excepted from disclosure, the Attorney General or a requestor may file suit for a writ of 4 mandamus compelling the governmental body to make See Open Records Letter Rulings (ORLs), the information available. Id. § 552.321. Conversely, a OFFICE OF THE ATT'Y GEN. OF TEX. , www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/open/index_orl.php (last governmental body may file suit against the Attorney visited June 22, 2015). Texas law authorizes the General, seeking declaratory relief from compliance with the Attorney General to announce legal determinations in Attorney General's decision. Id. § 552.324(a). In that suit, various forms. The Government Code, for example, however, a governmental body can only rely on exceptions authorizes the Attorney General to provide “a written it asserted when it requested the Attorney General's decision, opinion” to certain governmental officials addressing unless the exception is based on a federal law requirement or “a question affecting the public interest or concerning involves another person's property or privacy interests. Id. § the official duties of the requesting person.” TEX. 552.326(a), (b). GOV'T CODE § 402.042(a). The Attorney General's determinations under this authority are commonly The Act's requirements apply only to a “governmental body,” referred to as “attorney general opinions” and are which the Act defines to mean: named numerically using the initials of the issuing Attorney General as a prefix. See About Attorney General Opinions, OFFICE OF THE ATT'Y GEN. OF © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 The Public Information Act is unique in its extensive (i) a board, commission, department, committee, explanation of the policies that led to its enactment. As institution, agency, or office that is within or is the Court explains, the Legislature first adopted the Act created by the executive or legislative branch of state in response to the “Sharpstown scandal.” Ante at 57. The government and that is directed by one or more elected Act begins by expressing the “fundamental philosophy” that or appointed members; “government is the servant and not the master of the people” and “the policy of this state that each person is entitled, (ii) a county commissioners court in the state; unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to (iii) a municipal governing body in the state; complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.” TEX. (iv) a deliberative body that has rulemaking or quasi- GOV'T CODE § 552.001(a). While the people of Texas judicial power and that is classified as a department, have delegated governing authority to public employees, they agency, or political subdivision of a county or “do not give their public servants the right to decide what municipality; is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.” Id. Because “[t]he people insist on remaining (v) a school district board of trustees; informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created,” the Act expressly provides that it “shall (vi) a county board of school trustees; be liberally construed to implement this policy.” Id. Courts (vii) a county board of education; must construe the Act's provisions “in favor of disclosure of requested information.” Jackson v. State Office of Admin. (viii) the governing board of a special district; Hearings, 351 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex.2011); see also TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.001(b) (“This chapter shall be liberally (ix) the governing body of a nonprofit corporation construed in favor of granting a request for information.”). organized under Chapter 67, Water Code, that provides a water supply or wastewater service, or both, and is exempt from ad valorem taxation under Section 11.30, C. Prior Constructions of the Act Tax Code; Pursuant to their responsibility to “maintain uniformity in the (x) a local workforce development board created under application, operation, and interpretation” of the Act, TEX. Section 2308.253; GOV'T CODE § 552.011, Texas Attorneys General have issued numerous opinions addressing whether private entities (xi) a nonprofit corporation that is eligible to receive —including several chambers of commerce and similar funds under the federal community services block grant organizations—were “supported in whole or in part by public program and that is authorized *71 by this state to serve funds.” Respecting the Attorney General's unique role, courts a geographic area of the state; and have given deference to Attorney General interpretations and (xii) the part, section, or portion of an organization, applications, most notably the Fifth Circuit in Kneeland v. corporation, commission, committee, institution, or National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 850 F.2d 224, 228 (5th agency that spends or that is supported in whole or in Cir. 1988). part by public funds[.] Id. § 552.003(1)(A)(i)–(xii). The question here is whether 1. Pre-Kneeland Attorney General Decisions the Greater Houston Partnership is “supported in whole or in In 1973, shortly after the Act became effective, the Attorney part by public funds,” and thus a “governmental body” under General's very first open records decision addressed the part (xii). “Public funds” means “funds of the state or of a statutory language we address today and concluded that a governmental subdivision of the state.” Id. § 552.003(5). private bank was not “supported in whole or in part by public funds” merely because it received and held deposits of B. Reasons for the Act public funds. Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–1 (1973). Six years later, the Attorney General concluded that an organization very similar to the Partnership—a private, nonprofit corporation © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 chartered to promote the interests of the Dallas–Fort Worth Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM–116 (1983) (quoting Tex. Att'y Gen. metropolitan area—was a governmental body under the Act. ORD–228). The conference's constitution stated one of its Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–228 (1979). Pursuant to a contract, purposes was to aid members in incorporating intercollegiate the City of Fort Worth paid the corporation $80,000 to athletics within their educational programs and to “place “[c]ontinue its current successful programs and implement and maintain such athletics under the same administrative such new and innovative programs as will further its corporate and academic control.” Id. The constitution did not identify objectives and common *72 City's interests and activities” any specific, measurable services that the conference would over a three-year period. Id. The Attorney General concluded provide in exchange for the public funds. Id. that, by using the phrase “supported in whole or in part,” the Legislature “did not intend to extend the application of The Attorney General later determined that a private high the Act to private persons or businesses simply because they school and a private nonprofit water supply corporation provide specific goods or services under a contract with a were not governmental bodies because neither of them governmental body.” Id. But this contract did not “impose received any public funds. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JM– a specific and definite obligation on the [corporation] to 154 (1984), JM–596 (1986). Then, in 1987, the Attorney provide a measurable amount of service in exchange for a General concluded that a volunteer fire department was a certain amount of money as would be expected in a typical governmental body under the Act because fire protection is arms-length contract for services between a vendor and “traditionally provided by governmental bodies,” volunteer purchaser.” Id. Thus, not every “contract with a governmental fire departments have “strong affiliations with public body causes the records of a private contractor to be open,” agencies,” and the contract provided the department with but a private entity is supported by public funds, and is thus a funds “to carry on its duties and responsibilities,” which “governmental body,” when the public funds are “used for the the Attorney General considered to be for its “general general support of the [entity] rather than being attributable support.” Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM–821 (1987). The to specific payment for specific measurable services.” Id. Attorney General stated that the “test” for whether an entity is a governmental body under the Act “cannot be applied Three years later, the Attorney General relied on ORD–228 to mechanically” and that the “precise *73 manner of funding find that another chamber-of-commerce-like organization— is not the sole dispositive issue.” Id. Instead, the Attorney a private, nonprofit entity created to promote manufacturing General considered “[t]he overall nature of the relationship,” and industrial development in the Bryan area—was a and concluded “a contract or relationship that involves public governmental body because the City of Bryan's contractual funds and that indicates a common purpose or objective or payment of $48,000 was like an “unrestricted” grant, that creates an agency-type relationship” will bring the private rather than payment for specific measurable services. Tex. entity within the Act's definition of governmental body. Id. Att'y Gen. ORD–302 (1982) (noting that the situation was “virtually identical” to that in ORD–228). That same year, the Attorney General concluded that a private medical 2. Kneeland v. NCAA service provider for the Amarillo Hospital District was not a In 1988, the Fifth Circuit was asked whether the National governmental body under the Act because the parties' contract Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the former prescribed specific measurable services, including ambulance Southwest Conference (SWC), which received public funds services, for which the provider received a monthly sum from several Texas public universities, were “supported in “equal to the difference between cash receipts and approved whole or in part by public funds” and thus “governmental operating expenditures of the ambulance service.” Tex. Att'y bodies” under the Act. Kneeland, 850 F.2d at 228. In Gen. ORD–343 (1982). addressing this issue, the Court expressly based its analysis on the Attorneys General's prior decisions, noting that The following year, the Attorney General determined “[t]he usual deference paid to formal opinions of state that a proposed athletic conference consisting of member attorneys general is accentuated in this case because the universities would be a governmental body under the Act Texas Legislature has formally invited its Attorney General because each university would pay an upfront “membership to interpret the Act when asked to do so.” Id. at 228– fee” and subsequent annual fees that would be used for the 29. Construing the statute's language and extrapolating conference's “general support ... rather than being attributable principles from the Attorneys General's decisions, the Court to specific payments for specific measurable services.” Tex. cobbled together the following criteria—now known as the © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 “Kneeland test”—for determining whether a private entity is the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce to coordinate the “supported ... by public funds” and thus a governmental body annual Fiesta celebration was not a governmental body. under the Act: Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–569 (1990). The city designated the commission as its “official agency” responsible for planning, • “The Act does not apply to ‘private persons or businesses coordinating, and financially supporting the festival and gave simply because they provide specific goods or services the commission the right, subject to necessary approvals, under a contract with a government body.’ ” Id. at 228 to lease city-owned premises, obtain permits for parades (quoting Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–1). and concession stands along parade route, grant permission to place seating along parade route, and assign its permit • “[A]n entity receiving public funds becomes a and lease rights to other entities sponsoring the event. governmental body under the Act, unless its relationship Id. The Attorney General nevertheless concluded that the with the government imposes ‘a specific and definite commission was not a governmental body because it did obligation ... to provide a measurable amount of service not receive any public funds. Id. (“The threshold question is in exchange for a certain amount of money as would be whether the commission receives any funds from the City of expected in a typical arms-length contract for services San Antonio.”). The Attorney General rejected the argument between a vendor and purchaser.’ ” Id. (quoting Tex. that money the commission received from the sale of tickets Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM–821, which quotes Tex. Att'y for seating along the parade route was “public funds” because Gen. ORD–228). the money would otherwise have been paid to the city. Id. • “[A] contract or relationship that involves public funds (“By requiring the commission to get a permit for erecting and that indicates a common purpose or objective or that bleachers and limiting the charge per seat, the city is not creates an agency-type relationship between a private granting public funds to the commission, nor do the charges entity and a public entity will bring the private entity for seats constitute funds of the city.”). within the ... definition of a ‘governmental body.’ ” Id. (quoting Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM–821). In 1992, the Attorney General concluded that the Dallas Museum of Art was a governmental body under the Act, • “[S]ome entities, such as volunteer fire departments, even though it received 85% of its revenue from private will be considered governmental bodies if they provide sources. Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–602 (1992). The city owned ‘services traditionally provided by governmental some of the artwork at the museum, owned and maintained bodies.’ ” Id. (quoting Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM–821). the premises housing the museum, and paid the museum's utilities, half of the museum employees' salaries, and a pro Based on these principles and the Attorneys General's rata portion of the insurance premiums. Id. The museum decisions from which they were drawn, the Kneeland court admitted that it received public funds but argued that it held that the NCAA and SWC were not governmental bodies received the funds in exchange for “known, specific, and under the Act. Id. at 230–31. With respect to the NCAA, measurable services” as opposed to general support. Id. the court concluded that the universities “receive[d] a quid Relying on Kneeland and the prior decisions, the Attorney pro quo, in sufficiently identifiable and measurable quantities General disagreed, concluding that while the city received of services,” in exchange for the public funds they paid “valuable services in exchange for its obligations” to the to the NCAA. Id. at 230. Similarly, the court concluded museum, those “highly specialized, unique services” could that the SWC provided “specific and guageable services not be “known, specific, or measurable,” and the city thus which negate[d] the general support element required for a instead provided funds for the museum's general support. Id. governmental body designation.” Id. at 231. The Attorney General nevertheless held that the museum was not required to disclose the requested records because only the part of the museum supported by public funds was a 3. Post-Kneeland Attorney General Decisions governmental body, and the records related to a collection the museum owned as part of its permanent collection, not to Attorneys General have had several opportunities to address the part of the museum for which the city provided “direct the issue since Kneeland, and in doing so have adopted support.” Id. (noting the city's ownership of the building in *74 the federal court's synopsis of the principles from their which the collection was housed and its payment of a portion prior decisions. A few years after Kneeland, the Attorney of the overhead expenses was “tangential” and “insufficient General concluded that a private commission created by © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 to bring documents relating to the collection within the scope contract, the [Partnership] has not sufficiently demonstrated of the act”). that the nature of the services it provides are known, specific, or measurable.” Id. “Consequently,” the Attorney Again addressing chamber-of-commerce-type entities, the General concluded, “the [Partnership's] records concerning Attorney General conducted a similar analysis in holding its operations that are directly supported by governmental that the Arlington Chamber of Commerce and the Arlington bodies are subject to the Act as public information.” Id. Economic Development Foundation were governmental (emphasis added). bodies under the Act. See Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–621 (1993). The foundation admitted that it received public funds but In addition to arguing that it was not a governmental body, argued that it did so in exchange for specific, measurable the Partnership alternatively relied on the Act's exceptions to services. Id. The Attorney General disagreed, concluding disclosure for certain economic development information and that while the city received “valuable services in exchange for certain email addresses. See id.; TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ for the public funds,” the agreement failed “to impose 552.131 (excepting certain information relating to economic on the foundation a specific and definite obligation to development negotiations), 552.137 (excepting certain email provide a measurable amount of services in exchange for addresses). The Attorney General agreed in part and disagreed a certain amount of money, as one would expect *75 to in part, instructing the Partnership to release some but not find in a typical arms-length contract.” Id. The Attorney all of the documents submitted to the Attorney General for General concluded that the chamber of commerce was also review. See Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2004–4221. a governmental body, even though it received public funds through the foundation rather than from the city directly. Id. In 2007, the Attorney General again relied on Kneeland and the distinction between use of public funds for “general Eight years later, the Attorney General reached the same support” as opposed to payment for “specific and measurable result with respect to the Round Rock Chamber of Commerce, services” to conclude that a family planning service provider observing that its contract with the City of Round Rock that contracted with the Department of State Health Services neither restricted the chamber's use of the public funds it was a governmental body under the Act. Tex. Att'y Gen. received nor imposed any “specific and definite obligation to OR2007–06167 (2007). Similarly, in 2011, the Attorney provide a measurable amount of services in exchange for a General decided that channel Austin, a nonprofit corporation certain amount of money, as one would expect to find in a that contracted with the City of Austin “to manage the typical arms-length contract.” Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2001–4849 equipment, building, resources, and the three channels for (2001). Public Access,” received public funds as an “unrestricted grant” for its “general support rather than payment for specific And a few years after that, the Attorney General held that services.” Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2011–17967 (2011). the Greater Houston Partnership itself was a governmental body under the Act, under a similar analysis. Tex. Att'y In a 2008 formal opinion, the Attorney General observed, Gen. OR2004–4221 (2004). The Partnership specified in consistent with the Kneeland test, that it is sometimes its request for an Attorney General's ruling that the significant that the private entity has a “common purpose requested records related to a project being handled or objective or one that creates an *76 agency-type by a specific part of the Partnership, the Economic relationship” with the governmental entity, or that it performs Development Division. At that time, different contracts services “traditionally provided by governmental bodies.” governed the Partnership's relationship with the City of Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA–666 (2008). But the Attorney Houston. Examining those contracts' provisions—including General explained that the “primary test” is “whether the one that obligated the Partnership to “support the efforts of entity receives public funds for the general support of its the University of Houston Small [B]usiness Development activities, rather than using those funds to perform a specific Center in the conduct of the Director Business Assistance and definite obligation.” Id. (determining that an association Program, designed to assist and promote the efforts of local of appraisal districts, which received membership fees from businesses and entrepreneurs to form new business ventures governmental entities in exchange for promoting “effective or to expand existing business ventures”—the Attorney and efficient functioning and administration of appraisal General determined that, “[a]lthough ... the city is receiving districts in Texas,” was a governmental body). Four years valuable services in exchange for its obligations under this later, the Attorney General held that a health services provider © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 20 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 was a governmental body under the Act because the contract any other reports the Directors request; to produce any non- language evidenced a “common purpose or objective between confidential records the City Attorney requires to evaluate the the health service and the district such that an agency-type Partnership's compliance with the contract; and to inform the relationship [wa]s created.” Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2012–11220 City of any claims arising out of the Partnership's failure to (2012) (considering contract in which the parties agreed “to pay its employees, subcontractors, or suppliers. The contracts cooperate to provide services to the residents of Nacogdoches granted the City “full membership and exclusive benefits as County who are in need of service avoiding duplication of a General Partner” of the Partnership, *77 which included services when possible” and “to refer patients for services, membership in the Partnership's policy-level committees, as needed, and in doing so will provide documentation for but prohibited the City from participating on any of the patient records when needed”). Partnership's governing boards. The 2008 agreement differs from the 2007 agreement D. The Partnership's “Support” in several respects. While the 2007 agreement required the Partnership to “implement a program” to increase With the statute's language and these prior decisions in investments in the Houston area, the 2008 agreement mind, I turn to the facts at issue here. The Greater required the Partnership to provide “specific, measurable Houston Partnership is a private nonprofit corporation that services” to increase investments. While the 2007 contract functions as a chamber of commerce to promote job permitted the City to require the Partnership to terminate creation, increased trade, and capital investment in the any employee or subcontractor whose work the Directors greater Houston area. For many years, including 2007 and deemed unsatisfactory, the 2008 contract only required the 2008, the Partnership entered into an annual “Agreement for Partnership to “consider removing” any such employee or Professional Services” with the City of Houston, in which subcontractor. And unlike the 2007 agreement, the 2008 the Partnership agreed to perform certain marketing, research, agreement stated that the City's payments were solely for and promotional services designed “to increase investment services rendered and were not intended as general support in, and to improve the economic prosperity of Houston and for the Partnership's other activities, and expressly provided the Houston Airport System.” 5 The contracts required that that nothing in the agreement shall be construed to imply that the scope of the Partnership's services “support the goals, the Partnership is subject to the Texas Public Information Act. visions, and objectives outlined in the Partnership's Strategic Plan.” (Emphasis added). In exchange for these services, the In May 2008, 6 Houston-area resident Jim Jenkins submitted City agreed to pay the Partnership a lump sum amount of a Public Information Act request to the Partnership, asking $196,250.00 per quarter. The City's payments constituted less that it provide him with “a copy of the check register ... than 8% of the Partnership's total annual revenue, 90% of for all checks [the Partnership] issued for the year 2007,” which came from dues the Partnership's members paid. including “for each check issued: check number, check date, payee name, and check amount.” Jenkins later submitted a 5 The Local Government Code authorizes municipalities second request, seeking the same information for all checks to contract with private entities like the Partnership the Partnership issued in 2008. The Partnership refused to “for the administration of a program” to promote “local provide the requested information, and instead asked the economic development and to stimulate business and Attorney General to decide whether the Partnership is a commercial activity in the municipality.” TEX. LOC. “governmental body” subject to the Public Information Act. GOV'T CODE § 380.001. The Partnership did not assert that only “a part, section, The services agreements specified that the Partnership was or portion” of the Partnership is “supported in whole or an independent contractor, but they also gave the City in part by public funds,” as it had successfully argued in certain rights to participate in and control some of the 2004. See Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2004–4221. Nor did it assert Partnership's activities. Among other things, the Partnership that any information in the check register was not “public agreed to coordinate its efforts with the directors of the information” or that one of the Act's exceptions applied, as City's Department of Convention & Entertainment Facilities, it had also asserted in 2004. See id. Instead, the Partnership Department of Planning and Development, and the Houston relied solely on its contention that it is not a governmental Airport System (the Directors); to submit quarterly progress body under the Act. reports “describing in detail services performed”; to provide © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 6 The Partnership and City executed the 2008 services First, the Partnership contends the phrase “supported ... by agreement in August 2008, a few months after receiving public funds” unambiguously does not include the City's Jenkin's first request for information, which may explain contractual payments to the Partnership. Next, the Partnership the differences we have described between the 2007 and argues, even if the language is ambiguous, the Court should 2008 agreements. reject the Kneeland test because it is unclear and not Consistent with its 2004 ruling, the Attorney General's Open grounded in the statutory language. Third, if the Court does Records Division ruled that the Partnership is a governmental adopt the Kneeland test, the Partnership argues it is not body and must comply with the Act's requirements. Tex. “supported ... by public funds” even under that test. The Court Att'y Gen. OR2008–16062 (2008). The Partnership filed suit agrees with the Partnership's first argument—that the statute against the Attorney General to challenge the ruling, and unambiguously does not apply to the Partnership—but also Jenkins intervened. The trial court agreed with the Attorney notes its displeasure with the Kneeland test. I disagree. I General and held that the Partnership is a governmental body would hold that the statute is ambiguous, adopt but clarify under the Act. The Partnership appealed, and the court of the Kneeland test, and conclude that under that test the appeals affirmed, with one justice dissenting. 407 S.W.3d Partnership “is supported in whole or in part by public funds.” 776. We initially denied the Partnership's petition for review, but we later granted its motion for rehearing and its petition, to A. The Court's Interpretation address when a private entity may qualify as a governmental body under the Act. The Court begins its analysis by noting that the term “supported” can have several different meanings. Ante at 72–75. Because “supported by” in the clause at issue II. refers specifically to “public funds,” the Court concludes that the Act focuses solely on monetary support. Ante at 72–75. The Court then proceeds to identify two different “Supported in Whole or In Part” requirements that must each exist for a private entity to receive monetary “support,” which I will refer to as the The issue here is whether the Greater Houston Partnership is “sustenance” requirement and the “functional equivalent” “supported in whole or in part by public funds” and is thus requirement. Ante at 58–59 (agreeing with Partnership's a “governmental body” under the Act. 7 The interpretation contention that definition only includes “entities that were of the Act presents *78 questions of law. City of Garland created or exist to carry out government functions and v. Dall. Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 357 (Tex.2000). whose existence are maintained in whole or in part with In light of the Act's strong policy in favor of disclosure, a public funds”). Although the Court asserts that it is simply party seeking to withhold requested information bears the applying a “plain language” approach to construing the burden of proving that the information is not subject to statute, ante at 58–59, and is not relying on any “extra-textual disclosure under the Act. See Thomas v. Cornyn, 71 S.W.3d analytical construct,” ante at 56, neither of the Court's two 473, 488 (Tex.App.–Austin 2002, no pet.) (holding that “a requirements appears anywhere in the statute's language. I do governing body should bear the burden of proving in a judicial not agree that the Act's language “unambiguously” supports proceeding that an exception to disclosure applies”). the judicial insertion of either requirement into its definition of a “governmental body.” 7 Although the Partnership has previously argued that requested records related solely to its Economic Development Division, see Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2004– 1. The “Sustenance” Requirement 4221 (2004), it has made no similar effort to identify or limit the Act to any particular sections or divisions in this Addressing the first requirement, the Court says “supported” case. Our issue is therefore whether the Partnership, as a can mean (and here must mean) “sustenance, maintenance, whole, is “supported in whole or in part by public funds,” or both.” Ante at 59. The Court provides this as the and not whether any particular “part, section, or portion” “maintenance” definition of “supported”: “to pay the costs of the Partnership is. of: maintain; to supply with the means of maintenance (as The Partnership makes three arguments as to why it is not lodging, food or clothing) or to earn or furnish funds for a “governmental body” under the Public Information Act. maintaining[.]” Ante at 59 (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 22 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 2297 (2002)). The Court then at least in part, by public funds,” ante at 60 (emphasis concludes that “supported” cannot mean “maintenance” in added); and this context *79 because otherwise the definition would include “any private entity that received any public funds,” • “we define ‘supported in whole or in part by public funds' and “even a paper vendor with hundreds of clients would to include only those private entities or their sub-parts qualify as a ‘governmental body’ merely by virtue of selling sustained, at least in part, by public funds,” ante at 63 office supplies to a single state office.” Ante at 60. (emphases added). In contrast to the “maintenance” definition, the Court gives But despite these lip-service payments to the statute's this “sustenance” definition of “supported”: “to provide a language, the Court repeatedly holds that an entity (or any basis for the existence or subsistence of: serve as the source part, section, or portion of an entity) that receives public of material or immaterial supply, nourishment, provender, funds as sustenance (as opposed to maintenance) is not a fuel, raw material, or sustenance of.” Ante at 59 (quoting governmental body unless it cannot survive and pursue its WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY at 2297). mission without those funds: The Court thus distinguishes between the “maintenance” • “defining ‘supported’ as ‘sustenance’ ensures that only an meaning of “supported” and the “sustenance” meaning of entity, or its ‘part, section or portion,’ whose existence is “supported” and concludes that in the context of the Act, predicated on the continued receipt of government funds “supported by” can only mean the latter, so the Act applies would qualify as a ‘governmental body,’ ” ante at 60; only to private entities “sustained, at least in part, by public funds, meaning they would not perform the same or similar • “[t]o be ‘sustained’ by public funds suggests the services without public funds.” Ante at 53. existence of a financially dependent relationship between the governmental body and a private entity or Although the Court reads far more into these two definitions its subdivision,” ante at 60; of “support” than I find there, as explained below, I generally agree that the term “support” must refer here to monies paid • “a private entity would qualify under a financially as general funds to sustain the recipient, rather than funds dependent construction *80 of ‘supported’ if it could paid as consideration for specific goods or services. But the not pursue its mission and objectives without the receipt Court goes far beyond that principle today, and holds that of public funds, even if that funding only partially an entity is “supported in whole or in part by public funds” financed the entity's endeavors. In short, an entity only if the entity cannot survive without those funds. As a ‘supported’ by public funds would not just receive result, the Court writes the words “in part” completely out government funds; it would require them to operate in of the statutory definition. To be sure, the Court creates the whole or in part,” ante at 61; appearance that it is actually enforcing the statute as written • “[the Partnership] is not ‘supported’ by public funds by referring to the “supported ... in part” language several because it receives only a small portion of its times in its opinion: revenue from government contracts[, a]nd even if these • “requires us to decide whether the term ‘supported’ government contracts were eliminated, it could continue encompasses private entities ... sustained—in whole or to operate given the substantial revenue derived from in part —by [public] funds,” ante at 53 (emphasis other non-governmental sources,” ante at 61; added); • “the statute encompasses only those private entities • “ ‘supported’ ... unambiguously includes only those dependent on the public fisc to operate as a going entities at least partially sustained by public funding,” concern,” ante at 61; and ante at 54 (emphasis added); • “An entity ... that does not depend on any particular • “[the Partnership] is not wholly or partially sustained by revenue source to survive—public or private—is not public funds,” ante at 54 (emphasis added); sustained even in part by government funds,” ante at 63. • “the [Act] applies only to entities acting as the functional The Court thus holds that a private entity that receives public equivalent of a governmental body that are ‘sustained’ funds can be a governmental body under the Act only if © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 23 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 it cannot “survive” or “exist” or “pursue its mission and A relevant illustration is this: even if only 5% of the funds objectives” without those public funds, even if those funds that support the Court's hypothetical corporate subdivision are just “one of several contributing sources.” I disagree. An were public funds, the subdivision would still be “supported entity that is “sustained” (as the Court uses that word) by in part ” by those funds, and would thus be a governmental funds it receives from several different sources is sustained body under the Act's plain language. An entity “supported ... “in part” by the funds from each of those sources, even if it in part by public funds” is a governmental body, regardless could survive and pursue its mission without the funds from of whether it could “survive” or “pursue its mission” without any one source. The Court asserts that “sustenance implies those funds. See id. The Court's construction reads this that if the government ceased to provide financial support, language out of the Act by requiring the whole of the entity the entity would be unable to meet its financial obligations.” to live or die by the public fisc. Ante at 60. But even if that were true, 8 “sustenance in part ” implies the exact opposite. If “part” of an entity's 2. The “Functional Equivalent” Requirement “sustenance” comes from one source, it is “sustained in part ” by that source even if it could survive without that part. The Court also holds that an entity is not “supported in whole or in part by public funds” unless it is “acting 8 The Court fails to identify any dictionary that defines as the functional equivalent of a governmental body,” “supported” to mean financially dependent upon for ante at 64, and providing “services traditionally considered its very existence. See ante at 59–60. While there are governmental prerogatives or responsibilities,” ante at 62. many definitions of “support” that refer to “sustenance As with its first requirement, the Court does not derive or maintenance” or even “a basis for the existence or this requirement from the statutory definition at issue. subsistence of,” see ante at 59 (emphasis added), none Subsection (xii) expressly identifies several types of entities of the definitions require an absolute dependence, and that typically are not public (or governmental) entities, in any event, the statute's definition expressly excludes including an “organization,” a “committee,” an “institution,” such a requirement by referring to support “in part.” and—importantly, here—a “corporation.” The Act says such The Court attempts to justify its “surviv[al]” requirement private entities are governmental bodies if they are “supported by suggesting that the statute's “ ‘in part’ language may in whole or in part by public funds,” not if they are acting envision a multi-division entity that does business with the as the “functional equivalent” of a governmental body or government, but not uniformly and not across all units.” performing traditional government responsibilities. TEX. Ante at 66. “For instance,” the Court explains, if a “large GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii). The Court, however, corporation” has a “subdivision” that “is wholly funded by asserts three bases for imposing this requirement: (1) the Act's government contracts,” but the government funds are only “a “stated purpose”; (2) the statute's omission of “any broad relatively small portion of the corporation's total revenue,” reference to private entities”; and (3) the “scope and nature the corporation “may be said to be supported ‘in part’ by of the eleven other types of entities more clearly described public funds.” Ante at 66. This illustration confuses the as a ‘governmental body’ in the same provision,” ante at 61. statute's reference to “supported in part” with its reference I do not agree that any of these justifies writing the Court's to the “part, section, or portion” of an entity. The statute “functional equivalent” requirement into the statute. provides that the “part, section, or portion” of an entity is a governmental body if it is “supported in whole or in First, the Court suggests that requiring a private entity to part by public funds.” TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1) be the “functional equivalent” of a governmental body is (A)(xii). The Court is correct that, if one subdivision of a necessary to ensure that our construction of “supported” is large corporation is “supported in whole ... by public funds,” “compatible with” the Act's “stated purpose.” Ante at 59. then the corporation itself is “supported ... in part by public This “stated purpose,” the Court explains, is to provide funds.” But the statute permits the corporation to limit the the public with “complete information about the affairs of Act's application to the subdivision by showing that only government and the official acts of public officials and that subdivision (i.e., that “part, section, or portion” of the employees” to “allow the public to ‘retain control over corporation) *81 is “supported in whole or in part” by the instruments they have created.’ ” Ante at 59 (quoting public funds. The illustration the Court “conceptualize[s]” TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.001(a)). Although the Court has nothing to do with the Court's “surviv[al]” requirement. makes no effort to explain why this purpose necessitates or implies the “functional equivalent” requirement, I presume © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 24 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 the Court finds hidden meaning in the purpose statement's string of particularly broad terms to reference private reference to the “affairs of government,” the “acts of public entities of all types: “the part, section, or portion of officials and employees,” and the “instruments ... created,” an organization, corporation, commission, committee, as if the words I have emphasized exclude any purpose to institution, or agency that spends or is supported in whole or in part by public funds[.]” TEX. GOV'T CODE § require disclosure of information held by a private entity. 552.001(1)(A)(xii). The “omission” on which the Court But to emphasize a different word, the statute's purpose is to relies simply does not exist. provide “complete information” about those affairs, acts, and instruments. The Legislature may have believed that the only For the third (though “not dispositive”) reason for requiring way to ensure the public has “complete” information about a private entity to be the “functional equivalent” of a what their government is doing is to treat some private entities governmental body, the Court relies on the “canon of as governmental bodies under the Act. Whatever we may statutory construction known as noscitur a sociis.” Ante at 61. presume about what the Legislature may have “believed,” This canon provides “that a word is known by the company what the Legislature “said” was that “governmental body” it keeps.” Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 750 includes any entity “supported in whole or in part *82 (Tex.2006) (quoting Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, by public funds,” not any entity that is the “functional 575, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995)). It “directs that equivalent” of a governmental body. similar terms be interpreted in a similar manner,” TGS– NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432, 441 As a second reason for requiring a private entity to be (Tex.2011), but there is no similarity between the words the “functional equivalent” of a governmental body, the in definition (xii)—an “organization” or “corporation” that Court asserts that the definition does not include “any broad is “supported in whole or in part by public funds”—and those in the preceding definitions. If definition (xii) provided reference to private entities.” Ante at 60. 9 Assuming that the “general” language, following “specific and particularized Legislature “carefully omitted” any such “broad reference,” enumerations” in the first eleven definitions, then we would and presuming that the Legislature “purposefully selected” “treat the general words as limited and apply them only to the this omission, the Court concludes that the definition, “as same kind or class of [things] as those expressly mentioned.” applied to private entities, must be filtered through the Act's City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, purpose and function of allowing access to instrumentalities 29 (Tex.2003). But definition (xii) uses specific language, of government,” and thus “only applies to private entities inherently different than the language of the other definitions, acting as the functional equivalent of the government.” Ante and thus refers to something specific, not just a catch-all to at 60. Respectfully, I fail to follow the Court's logic. It conclude the preceding definitions. Under noscitur a sociis, might be logical to conclude from the omission of any we should look to the words “immediately surrounding” the “broad reference” to private entities that the Legislature did phrase “supported by,” which include the words “public *83 not intend to include all private entities as “governmental funds” and, importantly, “in whole or in part ” (which the bodies.” But it is illogical to conclude that the omission Court ignores). See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1224 of a “broad reference” somehow indicates which private (10th ed. 2014) (defining noscitur a sociis as “a canon of entities the Legislature intended to include and which it construction holding that the meaning of an unclear word or did not. And it is simply preposterous to conclude that the phrase, esp. one in a list, should be determined by the words omission somehow indicates that they intended to include immediately surrounding it”). “only those entities acting as the functional equivalent of the government.” Ante at 59–60. We need not engage in such Even if the Court were applying the doctrine of noscitur a sophistry, because the statute tells us which private entities sociis correctly here, that doctrine cannot be used to render the Legislature intended to include as governmental bodies: express statutory language meaningless. “If ... the specific those that are “supported in whole or in part by public funds.” terms exhaust the class of items enumerated in the statute, TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii). The Court finds it must be presumed that any generic term that follows support for its judicially created functional equivalent test must refer to items transcending the class, since a contrary only by manufacturing a “broad reference” to stack upon its construction ‘would contravene the more important rule of misconstruction of the Act's “stated purpose.” construction that all words are to be given effect.’ ” Shipp v. State, 331 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (quoting 9 This assertion is simply wrong. The very definition at 2A NORMAN J. SINGER & J.D. SHAMBIE SINGER, issue “broadly refers” to private entities by using a © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 25 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 47:21 interpretations of Public Information Act are persuasive but at 390–91 (7th ed.2007)); see also Columbia Med. Ctr. of not controlling). *84 But I would also clarify the Kneeland Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238, 256 (Tex.2008) test to provide greater simplicity and guidance. (“The Court must not interpret the statute in a manner that renders any part of the statute meaningless or superfluous.”); City of San Antonio, 111 S.W.3d at 29 (rejecting construction 1. Ambiguity that would render some statutory language unnecessary and The Court and the parties agree that not every private citing Spence v. Fenchler, 107 Tex. 443, 180 S.W. 597, entity that contracts with the government and receives 601 (1915), for the proposition that “[i]t is an elementary payments of public funds is “supported ... by public funds.” rule of construction that, when possible to do so, effect More specifically, they agree with the Attorneys General's must be given to every sentence, clause, and word of a conclusion that an ordinary, arms-length transaction between statute so that no part thereof be rendered superfluous or a private party and a governmental entity does not render inoperative”). We must “read the statute contextually,” Office the private party a “governmental body” under the Act. of Att'y Gen., 422 S.W.3d at 629, considering the relevant They agree that something more is required, but they dispute language in the context of the statute as a whole, rather whether that something is present here. I too agree that than as “isolated provisions,” TGS–NOPEC Geophysical, 340 something more is required, but I conclude that the statute is S.W.3d at 439, and endeavoring to “giv[e] effect to every word, clause, and sentence,” In re Office of Att'y Gen., 422 ambiguous as to what that something is. 10 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex.2013), so that none of the language is rendered superfluous, see Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. 10 The Court argues that “governmental body” should not Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex.2014). Because the include every single vendor who sells a product or Court's construction renders the phrase “in whole or in part service to the government in a quid pro quo transaction, ” meaningless, I do not agree that definition (xii) includes and cites authority from other jurisdictions to support “organizations” and “corporations” only if they “function as this contention. This is, of course, a straw man argument, as everyone in the case agrees that we cannot construe quasi-public” entities. Ante at 62. the term that broadly. But merely because one extreme construction is available that would lead to an (arguably) absurd result does not mean that every less extreme B. A More Accurate Interpretation construction within the range from narrowest to broadest If a statute's words are susceptible to two or more possible constructions is unreasonable. Moreover, no one reasonable interpretations, and we “cannot discern legislative argues that the Partnership is merely an ordinary vendor under the contracts at issue here. intent in the language of the statute itself,” the statute is ambiguous, and we may rely on applicable canons of The phrase “supported by” can have multiple common, statutory construction. Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State ordinary meanings, including: Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 639 (Tex.2010). I would conclude that the words “supported by” are ambiguous in 1. To carry the weight of, exp. from below. this context, and would thus grant deference to the Attorneys 2. To maintain in position so as to keep from falling, General's long-standing construction of the Act's definition sinking, or slipping. of a “governmental body.” See Combs v. Health Care Servs. Corp., 401 S.W.3d 623, 629–30 (Tex.2013) (stating 3. To be able to bear: WITHSTAND. that we grant deference to construction of agency that is charged with enforcement of statute if statute is ambiguous, 4. To keep from failing or yielding during stress. agency interpretation results from formal proceedings, and 5. To provide for, by supplying with money or necessities. interpretation is reasonable). Though not controlling, I would <support a large family> consider the Attorney General constructions to be persuasive, particularly in light of the responsibility the Legislature has 6. To furnish corroborating evidence for <support a given the Attorney General for “interpreting” and promoting witness's testimony> uniformity in the application of the Act. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.011; see also City of Dall. v. Abbott, 304 S.W.3d 7. To aid the cause of by approving, favoring, or advocating 380, 384 (Tex.2010) (observing that Attorneys General's <support for a political candidate> © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 26 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 precedents—and specifically Attorney General decisions and 8. To endure: tolerate. the Kneeland test—or further guidance. 11 9. a. To act (a part or role). b. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer). 11 A statute is ambiguous if two or more plausible constructions are reasonable. Tex. Lottery Comm'n, WEBSTER'S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1108 325 S.W.3d at 639. The Court finds the phrase (1995). “supported in whole or in part by public funds” unambiguous, although it suggests that two of the I agree with the Court that most of these definitions do dictionary definitions (“sustenance” and “maintenance”) not apply in this statutory context, which limits “support” are “remotely possible.” Ante at ––––. The Court pursues to a function that can be performed by money. See TGS– a backwards approach to the ambiguity analysis: it relies NOPEC Geophysical, 340 S.W.3d at 441 (using statutory on context, purpose, and canons of construction first to context to eliminate inapplicable meanings of a word in exclude every possible meaning of the word “supported” except two, then to exclude all but the most narrow the statute). An ordinary reader could construe some of the of those two “possible” definitions, and then declares broader definitions to include financial “support”: e.g., public that the term is “unambiguous” because there's only funds could “carry the [financial] weight of” an entity. See one “reasonable” definition.” I find the term ambiguous WEBSTER'S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY at 1108. because, even in context and considering the statute's In context, the most relatable definition is “[t]o provide for, purpose, it is susceptible to more than one reasonable by supplying with money or necessities.” Id. The Partnership meaning, and I thus turn to canons of construction and relies on this common meaning and argues that, just as a persuasive authorities for assistance in determining what person “pays” an employee but “supports” a family member, the statute's actual language must mean. the City “paid” rather than “supported” the Partnership. But even this definition of “support” does not resolve the statute's 2. A Clarified Kneeland Test ambiguity because the statute requires only that the entity be supported “in whole or in part ” by public funds. TEX. GOV'T Although this Court has not previously construed the Act's CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii) (emphasis added). “supported by” language, the Fifth Circuit has in Kneeland, and Attorneys General have since consistently relied on the As the Court notes, in the broadest sense, virtually any income Kneeland test as the governing standard. The Partnership from public funds could reasonably be considered to *85 urges us to reject the Kneeland test, asserting that it “has no “provide for” the Partnership “in part” by supplying it with basis in the statutory text” and leaves too much uncertainty money, even if the City pays the money in exchange for in the law. The Attorney General counters that the Kneeland specific goods or services rendered. Ante at 84; see also test “satisfies the legislature's intent[ ] to shed light on the Tex. Ass'n of Appraisal Dists., Inc. v. Hart, 382 S.W.3d 587, affairs of government” and “provides a workable framework 591–92 (Tex.App.–Austin 2012, no pet.) (observing that the for determining whether an entity is a governmental body dictionary definitions of “support” are “so broad and varied under the [Act] because it treats entities functioning as that any private entity that receives any public funds can governmental bodies as such while eliminating vendors be said to be, at least in part, ‘supported’ by those public providing goods and services through arms-length contracts funds,” yet all authorities have agreed that “simply receiving from the definition.” public funds does not make a private entity a ‘governmental body’ under the [Act]”). The same problem results from the I would conclude that the Kneeland test and its related Court's definition of “supported” to mean “to provide a basis precedent offer persuasive, though not controlling, legal for the existence or subsistence of.” Ante at 59. At least “in authority. See Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc., part,” the City's payments for chamber-of-commerce services 237 S.W.3d 338, 343 & n.8 (Tex.2007) (noting that Fifth provide a reason for the Partnership's existence and enable Circuit precedent is persuasive but not binding on this Court) it to “pursue its mission,” and the City's payments for those (citing Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294, services constitute at least a “part” of the revenue that sustains 296 (Tex.1993)). The test is founded on deference to the the Partnership. See ante at 84. I would conclude that the Attorneys General's interpretations of the Act, which are Act's reference to entities that are “supported in whole or in likewise persuasive but not controlling. See City of Dall., part by public funds” is ambiguous, and thus turn to existing 304 S.W.3d at 384. The Court complains that the Kneeland © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 27 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 test has a “questionable foundation,” noting that even the uses that term. Thus, a private entity that receives public Kneeland court acknowledged that its explanation of its funds in exchange for assuming an “obligation to provide holding was “a mite uncertain.” Ante at 65 (quoting Kneeland, a measurable amount of service in exchange for a certain 850 F.2d at 224). But as *86 the Court notes, it is the amount of money as would be expected in a typical arms- “direction given” in Kneeland that the court described as length contract for services between a vendor and purchaser” “uncertain,” not the “foundation” on which the court relied. is not “supported by” those public funds, and is not a Although the court acknowledged that its description of the governmental body under the Act. CareFlite v. Rural Hill test was less than clear, “[o]ne may have no quarrel with the Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 132, 141–42 formulae” it adopted. Kneeland, 850 F.2d at 228. I would take (Tex.App.–Eastland 2012, no pet.) (holding that medical this opportunity to clarify the Kneeland test by articulating service provider was not a governmental body); see also three basic requirements for determining whether a private Hart, 382 S.W.3d at 595 (holding that association of appraisal entity that provides services to or for the government and is districts was not a governmental body). paid with public funds is “supported in whole or part by public funds” and is thus a governmental body under the Act. A second requirement for a private entity to be “supported ... by public funds,” then, should be that the private entity must receive public funds not as compensation or consideration paid in exchange for “specific goods” or “specific measurable a. Receipt of Public Funds services,” but as a general or unrestricted payment provided First, to be “supported by” public funds, a private entity must to subsidize or underwrite the private entity's activities. at least “receive” public funds, so an entity that does not See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA–666; compare Tex. receive public funds is not a governmental body under this Att'y Gen. ORD–228 (concluding that commission was provision. Thus, while the Attorney General was cognizant governmental body because it received public funds “used in JM–821 that the role of a volunteer fire department is one for [its] general support”); Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–302 “traditionally provided by governmental bodies,” this fact, (concluding that promoter of manufacturing and industrial standing alone, is not enough. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. development was governmental body because it was *87 JM–821. Arguably, at least, the private high school in JM– provided “unrestricted” grant of public funds); Tex. Att'y 154, the water supply corporation in JM–596, and the Fiesta Gen. Op. No. JM–116 (concluding that athletic association planning commission in ORD–569 also provided services was governmental body because it was provided public funds “traditionally provided by governmental bodies.” See Tex. to be “used for [its] ‘general support ... rather than being Att'y Gen. ORD–569; Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JM–154, attributable to specific payments for specific measurable JM–596. But because they did not receive public funds, they services” ”), with Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–343 (concluding were not governmental bodies under part (xii). See TEX. that ambulance service provider was not governmental body GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii). As the Attorney General because it was paid specific amounts to cover specific, recognized, “[t]he threshold question is whether the [private measurable services provided under service contract). entity] receives any funds from the [public fisc].” Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–569; see also Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2013–09038 This requirement would most easily be met when a (determining that El Paso Zoological Society that received no governmental entity provides a “grant” to promote the public funds was not a governmental body). private entity's activities, but it may also be met when the governmental entity “pays” the private entity to provide services to or for the governmental entity or its constituents. The terminology that the parties choose to use should not be b. Support, Not Consideration determinative. A key factor in the context of a service contract like those at issue here would be whether the relationship Everyone agrees, however, that merely “receiving” public between the service provider and the governmental entity funds does not equate to being “supported by” those funds. is the kind of “quid pro quo ” relationship common in the Governmental entities regularly purchase a wide variety service industry, see Kneeland, 850 F.2d at 230, or whether of goods and services from private vendors, including the relationship is something more akin to a governmental everything from legal pads to legal services, and I agree body outsourcing governmental services to a private entity, that such vendors are generally not “supported ... by public see Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–228, ORD–302; see also Hart, funds” as a result of such transactions, at least as the Act © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 28 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 382 S.W.3d at 595 (observing that association of appraisal of entities that are supported “in part” by public funds, it is districts did not perform services traditionally performed by the nature of the public funds (as support or sustenance and governmental bodies and instead provided services under not as compensation or consideration), and not the amount or conditions similar to what would be expected in typical arm's- percentage of the public funds, that matters. length transaction). In this context, I note that the Attorney General's ruling c. A Shared Common Purpose here should have come as no surprise to the Partnership, as Attorneys General have repeatedly concluded that Finally, to ensure that the funds are received as a general or chambers of commerce, see Tex. Att'y Gen. Nos. ORD–621 unrestricted payment to subsidize or underwrite the private (Arlington Chamber of Commerce), OR2001–4849 (Round entity's activities, a third requirement should be that the funds Rock Chamber of Commerce), chambers-of-commerce-like be intended to promote a purpose, interest, or mission that entities, see Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–228 (entity chartered to the governmental and private entities share and would both promote interest of Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area), pursue even in the absence of their contractual relationship. ORD–302 (entity promoting manufacturing and industrial The mere existence of an “agency-type relationship” or development around City of Bryan), and even the Partnership a “common purpose or objective,” or even the fact that itself, see Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2004–4221, are governmental the service is one “traditionally provided by governmental bodies under the Act. But these conclusions are based on a bodies,” should not be sufficient by itself to meet this “fact-specific” analysis of the contract and context of each third requirement. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA–666; case. See Kneeland, 850 F.2d at 228; see also CareFlite, Kneeland, 850 F.2d at 228–29. 12 It is not unusual for 418 S.W.3d at 138 (“The answer to the [governmental-body] an arms-length services vendor to take on an agency-type inquiry depends upon the circumstances of each case.”). As role for its customer, or for a governmental agency to the Attorney General has confirmed, a chamber of commerce enter into an arms-length contract for government services that is not “supported in whole or in part by public funds” is that the agency itself traditionally provides, and contracting not a governmental body under the Act. See Tex. Att'y Gen. parties will ordinarily share at least the common objective of OR2015–05495 (2015) (finding Central Fort Bend Chamber effectuating the obligations and purposes of their contract. In of Commerce is not governmental body because it only ORD–343, for example, the Amarillo Hospital District and its received public funds as membership fees paid for specific ambulance service provider shared the common goal of the measurable services). contract: providing the people of Amarillo with emergency transportation to local hospitals. See Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD– With regard to this second requirement, I would not dictate 343. But such relationships do not necessarily result in the that the public funds equal a particular amount or percentage governmental body “supporting” the private entity. of the entity's total revenue, nor would I mandate that the entity require those funds for its existence or survival. The Act 12 See also CareFlite, 418 S.W.3d at 142 (“[W]e have defines “governmental body” to include “the part, section, or not found [ ] any authority, primary or persuasive, portion” of an entity that is “supported in whole or in part that stands for the proposition that, if a private entity by public funds.” TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(xii). and a governmental body share a common purpose Thus, public funds could make up only a small portion of or objective, the private entity is automatically a an entity's total revenues and yet provide general support, governmental body for purposes of the [Act]. Neither and even the sole support, for a particular part, section, or are we aware of any like authority when an entity portion of the entity, or support “in part” of the entity as provides services traditionally provided by governmental a whole. See Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD–602 (holding that city bodies.”). provided general support to museum even though public Instead, I would hold that a supportive relationship exists funds constituted only 15% of total revenue, but only portion when the parties share a true “identity of interests” that each of museum that received “direct support” was a governmental of them has beyond any particular transaction or finite series *88 body). Under this construction of the Act, that part, of transactions between them. See Kneeland, 850 F.2d at section, or portion of the entity is a governmental body under 228–29 (“[T]here apparently is some common purpose or the Act, even if the rest of the entity is not. See id. In short, objective between the association and the universities, or they because the statute includes the “part, section, or portion” would not be drawn to each other, but there is no real identity © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 29 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 of interest and neither may be considered the agent of the In summary, then, I would clarify the Kneeland test and hold other.”). The volunteer fire department in JM–821 provides that a private entity (or a part, section, or portion thereof) an example of this more extensive “identity of interests” is “supported in whole or in part by public funds,” and is relationship. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM–821. There, the thus a governmental body under the Public Information Act, private entity and the governmental entity each independently if (1) the private entity receives public funds; (2) it does so had the purpose of protecting citizens and property from fires not as compensation or consideration made in exchange for and other hazards, and the governmental entity promoted the “specific goods” or “specific measurable services,” but as private entity's pursuit of that purpose by providing “general a general or unrestricted payment provided to subsidize or support.” See id. underwrite the private entity's activities; and (3) the funds provided are intended to promote a purpose, interest, or I would thus distinguish between (1) a situation in which mission that the governmental and private entities share and a private entity contractually undertakes a governmental would each pursue even in the absence of their contractual entity's objectives because the governmental entity agrees to relationship. pay for those services, and (2) a situation in which a private entity and a governmental entity that each independently have the same purpose or interest, and thus an “identity of interest,” III. contractually *89 agree to pursue that interest in cooperation and using public funding. See Kneeland, 850 F.2d at 228–29. For example, when a governmental entity hires a law firm to Application to the Partnership represent it in litigation, the firm and the government share The Partnership, which undisputedly received public funds, interests and objectives specific to the firm's representation asserts that its agreements with the City were arm's-length, of that entity, but they do not necessarily have an “identity of quid pro quo contracts that only obligated it to perform interests.” Although both the firm and the client may desire specific and measurable services. The Attorney General and jointly pursue the same outcome from the representation, disagrees, contending that the Partnership was “paid a certain the firm's interest in achieving that outcome is transaction amount of money on a quarterly basis to accomplish a specific: the law firm takes on that goal because the client broad range of goals designed to promote the City.” The pays it to do so, and but for the client-attorney relationship, Court agrees with the Partnership. Under the facts of this the law firm generally has no stake in the outcome of the record, I would conclude that the Partnership meets all three litigation. 13 requirements for being “supported ... by public funds.” 13 Contrary to the Court's concern, this distinction would apply as effectively when the government contracts with A. Payments to Subsidize the Partnership's Activities a private firm to “provide more enduring and wide- ranging counsel” as it would when it hires a firm to The parties do not dispute, and I agree, that some of handle a specific matter. See ante at 66. In either case, the provisions in the Partnership's contracts with the City the third requirement (common purpose) typically would imposed specific and definite obligations on the Partnership not be met because it is not part of the law firm's mission to provide a measurable amount of service. The court of or purpose to achieve the specific objectives that the appeals also agreed, but found that the Partnership's “major government hires it to achieve, other than to fulfill its obligations under the contract are not specific, definite, or tied obligation to its client. But if the government paid funds to a measurable amount of service for a certain amount of to a special interest firm whose mission as a firm was to money.” 407 S.W.3d at 784. The court *90 provided these protect the environment, or promote a pro-life agenda, examples of the Partnership's indefinite obligations to: or increase health care for children, for example, this third requirement might be satisfied if the purpose of the • [i]dentify new business opportunities, secure economic government's payment was to “support” the firm's efforts incentives and increase outreach and recruitment to accomplish that mission. If the second requirement activities to the region's targeted key industries to were also satisfied (i.e., the government paid the funds to strengthen the City of Houston as a competitive place to subsidize or underwrite the firm's efforts, rather than as do business; consideration for specific, measurable services), the firm would be a governmental body under the Act. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 30 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 perform its obligations “in exchange for a certain amount • partner with the airport system to recruit, relocate, and of money,” as the Partnership is paid a set amount on expand business which supports the master plan, and to a quarterly basis “regardless of whether or how much it identify business incentives available in both public and does in furtherance of the contract's goals.” According to private sectors; the Partnership, “this observation fails to acknowledge or appreciate that all payments under the contracts are made ‘in • make its research capabilities available to the City arrears and are contingent upon receipt and approval’ ” of the of Houston's convention and entertainment facilities Partnership's performance reports. department and its convention and visitor's bureau for marketing reports; I agree with the court of appeals that while some of the • support and coordinate with HAS to develop new services the Partnership provides under the contracts are air routes, stimulate increased international trade and specific and measurable, the major obligations are broad and business for Houston companies; open-ended. Although the performance reports may identify specific services that the Partnership performed in fulfilling • promote HAS stories in international markets and those general promises, these after-the-fact reports of services highlight HAS efforts to provide airports allowance for the Partnership decided to provide do not impose a *91 expansion and ease of transportation; contractual obligation on the Partnership to provide those specific services. And although the contracts provide that the • “coordinate on matters of mutual interest” before the U.S. City's quarterly payments to the Partnership are “contingent Congress, federal agencies, the Texas Legislature, and upon receipt and approval by the Director of [the] written Texas agencies; and progress reports in accordance with Article III(C),” that article merely authorizes the Director to require reports and • assist the City of Houston's mayor, should she ask for to determine their format and content; it does not authorize help, with “advancing various Economic Development the Director to dictate what services must be provided or and Marketing Initiatives.” included in the report or otherwise narrow the Partnership's Id. at 784. In light of these provisions, the court of appeals broad discretion to decide the types and amounts of services concluded that it could not “say that overall the contract here to provide. Finally, the fact that it might be difficult or imposes specific and definite obligations on [the Partnership] impossible for the contracts to provide greater detail about to provide a measurable amount of services to the City of some of the “intangible deliverables” does not weigh in favor Houston in exchange for a certain amount of money, as would of treating those provisions as if they called for “specific, be expected in a typical arms-length contract for services measurable services” when they do not. In ORD–602, the between a vendor and purchaser.” Id. Attorney General recognized that the “highly specialized, unique services” the museum provided to the City of Dallas The Partnership contends, and the Court apparently agrees, could not be “known, specific, or measurable,” but the that its contractually mandated performance reports provide Attorney General still concluded that the museum was, in the missing specifics for the broader obligations on which part, a governmental body under the Act. See Tex. Att'y Gen. the court of appeals relied. The Partnership also asserts that ORD–602 (1992). some of its contractual obligations are necessarily vague because “in the context of intangible deliverables it would be As the court of appeals pointed out, the contracts at nearly impossible to provide greater details.” For example, issue do not tie the City's payments to the Partnership to the contracts require the Partnership to “make its research discrete services or measurable amounts of service. Instead, capabilities available on request to” the City of Houston's the City paid the Partnership a flat fee of $196,250 per convention and entertainment facilities department and its quarter, regardless of whether, or how, or how extensively convention and visitor's bureau “to facilitate the creation the Partnership made efforts to “identify new business of professional, sophisticated marketing reports,” but the opportunities, secure economic incentives, and increase City cannot predict all of the groups that might approach outreach and recruitment activities to the region's targeted it during the course of a year with an interest in the key industries to strengthen Houston as a competitive place convention center. The Partnership also takes issue with the to do business.” The absence of an identifiable link between court of appeals' observation that the Partnership does not the services provided and the payment due, when considered © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 31 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 in conjunction with the lack of specificity and measurability the absence of their contractual relationship. The evidence in many of the contract's service requirements, demonstrates here readily establishes that this requirement is met. that the City paid the Partnership public funds to subsidize, Independent from any contract with the City, the Partnership underwrite, and support the Partnership's activities. exists to promote job creation, increased trade, and capital investment in the greater Houston area. As the Court It is true that public funds make up only a small “part” of the agrees, even without the City's contract, the Partnership Partnership's support. But when an entity, or “part, section, “could and would continue to promote the greater Houston or portion” of an entity, receives public funds for its general economy to advance its own interests and those of its support, the entity has broad discretion to use those funds more than 2,000 non-government members.” Ante at 61. as it sees fit to accomplish its goals, and the entity shares The City contracted with the Partnership because the City those goals with a public entity that would otherwise use the independently shares those same interests. The City did not funds to accomplish those goals itself, the entity, or that “part, pay the Partnership to provide services merely to promote section, or portion” of the entity, is “supported in whole or in the City's individual objectives, but to promote objectives part by public funds.” This does not mean that the public has that the City and the Partnership share. In fact, the contracts a right to know how the Partnership spends all of its funds, required that the scope of the Partnership's services “support but the Partnership has made a tactical decision here not to the goals, visions, and objectives outlined in the Partnership's provide information about where the public funds go within Strategic Plan.” (Emphasis added.) The interest the City the Partnership or how the public funds are spent, so that and Partnership share does not arise solely out of the we could limit its duty to produce records under the Act to parties' contractual relationship—both parties independently “records concerning its operations that are directly supported share these objectives. The City has an inherent motive to by governmental bodies,” as the Attorney General has done promote its own financial interests, and promotion of the for the Partnership in the past. See Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2004– City's economic development was a primary focus of the 4221 (emphasis added). Partnership's purpose. Finally, as noted, the 2008 services agreement included Under these circumstances, I would hold that the Partnership language specifying that the City's funds were “solely was “supported in whole or in part by public funds” so for services rendered under this Agreement and are not as to fall within the definition of a “governmental body” intended to support [the Partnership] in any of its activities under the Public Information Act. See TEX. GOV'T CODE not specifically set forth in this Agreement.” But the § 552.003(1)(A)(xii). determination of this issue must depend on the actual nature of the services and payment obligations under the contract. The 2008 contract's conclusory statements that the contract IV. does not render the Partnership a governmental body and that the contract payments are not for general support do not make it so. Just as a governmental *92 body cannot avoid the Policymaking Act's requirements by promulgating rules, see Indus. Found. Although the Court acknowledges the Act's instruction that of the S., 540 S.W.2d at 677, it cannot do so by contractually we construe it liberally in favor of a request for information, agreeing that the Act does not apply. Otherwise, every entity see id. § 552.001(b), the Court chooses to adopt the most contracting with the government would shield itself from narrow construction of “supported” possible, because a the Act simply by stating in the contract that it is not a broader construction would permit “public intrusion into the governmental body. In light of the broad, open-ended services private affairs of non-governmental entities,” ante at 62, the Partnership agreed to perform under these contracts, I “pry open the sensitive records of private entities,” ante at would conclude that the second requirement is met. 62 n.12, and subject the Partnership to “invasive disclosure requirements,” ante at 67. Even if we could construe the Act B. Identity of Interests according to our preferred results rather than the text of the statute (which we cannot, or at least, should not), I find the I now consider whether the City's funds were intended Court's concerns to be not nearly as troubling as the Court to promote a purpose, interest, or mission that the City suggests. and the Partnership share and would each pursue even in © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 32 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 What the Court fails to acknowledge is that the Act protects holding, if allowed to stand, will be “catastrophic” for the Partnership's “sensitive records,” but the Partnership chambers of commerce in Texas and will render them elected not to seek that protection. The Act expressly excepts “wholly unable to function.” from disclosure all information that is “confidential by law, I am not convinced that the effect of our determination either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision.” TEX. would or must be as drastic as either party, or the Court, GOV'T CODE § 552.101. Even if the information is not suggests. Although the Court concludes that the Partnership confidential by law, the Act still excepts it from disclosure is not a governmental body, the Act still empowers the if, for example, it constitutes the Partnership's commercial public to require the City to disclose all “information that is or financial information *93 and (as the Court assumes) written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained” by its disclosure would cause the Partnership “substantial or for the City “under a law or ordinance or in connection competitive harm.” Id. § 552.110(b). In fact, as the Court with the transaction of official business.” TEX. GOV'T recently held, the Act excepts the information if its release CODE § 552.002(a)(1) (defining “public information”). This would even just “give advantage to a competitor.” See Boeing extends to not only the City's service agreements with Co. v. Paxton, No. 12–1007, ––– S.W.3d ––––, –––– (Tex. the Partnership and all reports and other information the June 19, 2015) (construing TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.104). Partnership provided to the City under those contracts, but And particularly apropos to the Partnership's activities, also all information the Partnership collects, assembles, or the Act specifically excepts certain “information [that] maintains for the City “in connection with the transaction of relates to economic development negotiations involving official business,” if the City “owns,” “has a right of access a governmental body and a business prospect that the to,” or “spends or contributes public money for the purpose governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in of writing, producing, collecting, assembling, or maintaining or near the territory of the governmental body.” TEX. GOV'T the information.” Id. § 552.002(a). Even if the requested CODE § 552.131(a). The Partnership did not assert any of information is not in the City's actual possession, the Act still these exceptions in this appeal. In fact, it did not assert any provides broad access to the Partnership's information related exceptions at all, even though it has successfully asserted to “the transaction of official business.” Id. exceptions in the past. See Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2004–4221. Nor did it ever contend that only a “part, section, or portion” Conversely, if the Court concluded, as I do, that the of the Partnership is supported by public funds, even though Partnership is a governmental body, the Partnership could it successfully made that assertion in the past as well. See id. still protect its confidential and commercially sensitive *94 information by relying on the Act's numerous exceptions. In The Partnership contends that the court of appeals' decision addition, the Partnership could assert (as it has previously represents a “vast overexpansion of the Public Information asserted), that only a particular “part, section, or portion” of Act to reach private business information that the public has the Partnership is supported in whole or in part by public no inherent or legitimate right to know.” In response, the funds, and only that “part, section, or portion” is required Attorney General asserts that the Partnership's construction to disclose information in response to a public information of the statute would permit governmental bodies to evade request. See id. § 552.003(1)(A)(xii); see also Tex. Att'y public scrutiny by contracting with private entities to carry Gen. OR2004–4221 (concluding that “the [Partnership's] out government business. “If governmental bodies can records concerning its operations that are directly supported shield information from public scrutiny by outsourcing by governmental bodies are subject to the Act as public their business to private companies,” the Attorney General information”) (emphasis added). In its appeal to this Court, contends, “the purpose of the [Act] is frustrated.” In short, however, the Partnership does not assert any exceptions, each party warns that the other's proposed construction does not contend that only a particular “part, section, or will have dire consequences, either destroying private portion” of the Partnership was supported by public funds, entities' ability to keep their private information private and has made no other effort to protect the information in its or undermining the people's right to know what their check registers, other than to claim it is not a governmental government is doing. The Partnership asserts, “The stakes are body. It is a risky litigation strategy, and the Court should tremendous.” 14 not let it motivate us to misinterpret the Act for fear that the Partnership's confidential financial information would 14 otherwise be disclosed. We have also received amicus briefs from several chambers of commerce arguing that the court of appeals' © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 33 Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (2015) 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 In any event, regardless of whether the effects will be as drastic as the Court, the Partnership, or the Attorney General V. suggest, our job is to interpret and apply the statute as written, not to rewrite it to achieve the policy outcomes they or we Conclusion may prefer. See In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex.2006) (“It is not the Court's task to I would hold that the Greater Houston Partnership was choose between competing policies addressed by legislative supported in whole or in part by public funds and would drafting. We apply the mandates in the statute as written.”) thus agree with the Attorney General, the trial court, and the (citation omitted). 15 court of appeals that the Partnership is a governmental body for purposes of Jenkins's public information requests. The 15 See also F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 Partnership has not argued that only a particular “part, section, S.W.3d 680, 690 (Tex.2007) (“[W]e do not pick and or portion” of the Partnership received public funds, or that choose among policy options on which the Legislature any of the information at issue falls within one of the Act's has spoken. ‘Our role ... is not to second-guess the exceptions to required disclosure. I would therefore affirm policy choices that inform our statutes or to weigh the court of appeals' judgment requiring the Partnership to the effectiveness of their results; rather, our task is to disclose its 2007 and 2008 check registers pursuant to the interpret those statutes in a manner that effectuates the Public Information Act. Legislature's intent.’ ”) (quoting McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 748 (Tex.2003)) (alteration in F.F.P. Operating Partners, 237 S.W.3d at 690). All Citations 468 S.W.3d 51, 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1362 End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 34 John v. State, 826 S.W.2d 138 (1992) [2] Eminent Domain KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Strict Compliance with Statutory Declined to Extend by State v. Titan Land Development Inc., Requirements Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.), June 11, 2015 148 Eminent Domain 826 S.W.2d 138 148III Proceedings to Take Property and Assess Supreme Court of Texas. Compensation 148k167 Statutory Provisions and Remedies Paul F. JOHN, Lillie John and John's 148k167(4) Strict Compliance with Statutory Requirements Welding & Construction, Inc., Petitioners, Procedures set forth in condemnation statute v. must be strictly followed and its protections The STATE of Texas, Respondent. liberally construed for benefit of landowner. V.T.C.A., Property Code § 21.049. No. D–1557. | Feb. 26, 1992. | Rehearing Overruled April 22, 1992. 15 Cases that cite this headnote Landowners appeal from judgment of the District Court No. 274, Guadalupe County, Fred Moore, J., entered in eminent [3] Eminent Domain domain proceeding. The San Antonio Court of Appeals Filing Report and Notice affirmed, and landowners applied for writ of error. The 148 Eminent Domain Supreme Court held that landowner's time to object to special 148III Proceedings to Take Property and Assess commissioner's award in condemnation proceeding is tolled Compensation until clerk sends notice to landowner pursuant to statute 148k225 Assessment by Commissioners, requiring clerk to send notice by next working day indicating Appraisers, or Viewers condemnation award. 148k234 Report and Findings or Award 148k234(5) Filing Report and Notice Reversed and remanded. Statute requiring clerk of court to send notification of special commissioner's decision in condemnation proceeding no later than next working day after day of decision is West Headnotes (6) mandatory because it is part of the statutory scheme authorizing eminent domain actions and is designed to protect landowner. V.T.C.A., [1] Eminent Domain Property Code § 21.049. Objections and Exceptions 148 Eminent Domain 12 Cases that cite this headnote 148III Proceedings to Take Property and Assess Compensation 148k225 Assessment by Commissioners, [4] Notice Appraisers, or Viewers Requisites and Sufficiency of Formal 148k235 Objections and Exceptions Notice in General Landowner's time to object to special 277 Notice commissioner's award in condemnation 277k9 Requisites and Sufficiency of Formal proceeding is tolled until clerk sends notice to Notice in General landowner pursuant to statute requiring clerk When statute provides method by which notice to send notice by next working day indicating shall be given in particular instance, notice condemnation award. V.T.C.A., Property Code provision must be followed with reasonable § 21.049. strictness.
2 Personal service will not suffice. Similarly misplaced is Ashcraft’s reliance on Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) as creating a personal service exception to section 21.049’s requirement. (AppelleeBr:39-41.) It misses the mark on two critical points. First, Roccaforte did not involve section 21.049 and there was no analysis or holding that the language of the statute in question elevated it from merely “directive” (which allows alternative compliance) to “mandatory,” (which does not allow alternative compliance). See John at 140-41.
4 Cases that cite this headnote county officials receive timely notice enabling them to answer and defend the claim, the case should not be dismissed. Because the court of appeals concluded otherwise, we reverse [5] Counties its judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further Service or presentation; timeliness proceedings. 104 Counties 104XII Actions 104k211 Conditions Precedent I. Background 104k213.5 Notice, Demand, or Presentation of Former Chief Deputy Constable Larry Roccaforte sued Claim Jefferson County and Constable Jeff Greenway, alleging that 104k213.5(2) Service or presentation; timeliness his wrongful termination deprived him of rights guaranteed Statute requiring that a plaintiff filing suit against by the Texas Constitution. Roccaforte personally served a county or county official must provide notice of County Judge Carl Griffith with the suit, and fifteen days suit via mail to county judge or district attorney later, the County (represented by the district attorney) and was satisfied by hand-delivery of notice, rather Constable Greenway answered, denying liability. The County than delivery by mail, in wrongful termination propounded written discovery requests, deposed Roccaforte, action brought by former chief deputy constable © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 and presented County officials for depositions. The County also filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Roccaforte Roccaforte notes that immediately did not give requisite notice of the suit. See TEX. LOC. after the dismissal order, the trial of the GOV'T CODEE § 89.0041. Roccaforte disagreed, arguing case proceeded to judgment without that the statute applied only to contract claims. Alternatively, the County as a party. No one disputes he argued that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 preempted the notice that all the claims against all other requirements and that he substantially complied with them in parties have been resolved. The order any event. of dismissal is therefore appealable whether or not the statute at issue is Although the trial court indicated that it would sustain the jurisdictional. County's plea and sever those claims from the underlying 281 S.W.3d 230, 231 n. 1. The court ultimately concluded case, it did not immediately sign an order doing so. In the that Roccaforte's failure to notify the County of the suit by meantime, Roccaforte tried his claims against Greenway. A registered or certified mail mandated dismissal of his suit jury returned a verdict in Roccaforte's favor. Afterwards, the against the County, but not because the trial court lacked trial court signed an order granting the County's jurisdictional jurisdiction. Id. at 236–37. Accordingly, the court modified plea. The order did not sever the claims from the underlying the dismissal order to reflect that dismissal was without case. Roccaforte then pursued this interlocutory appeal. His prejudice and affirmed the order as modified. Id. notice of appeal stated that “[p]ursuant to Civ. P. Rem.Code § 51.014(b), all proceedings are *921 stayed in the trial court Roccaforte petitioned this Court for review, which we pending resolution of the appeal.” But the proceedings were not stayed. granted. 2 53 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 1061 (Aug. 27, 2010). In the underlying case, Greenway moved for judgment 2 Dallas County submitted an amicus curiae brief in notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court granted support of Jefferson County. as to Roccaforte's property interest and First Amendment retaliation claims but denied as to Roccaforte's claimed II. Did the trial court's final judgment moot this violation of his liberty interest. Roccaforte moved for interlocutory appeal? entry of judgment. Notwithstanding the statutory stay Before turning to the merits, we must decide a procedural referenced in Roccaforte's notice of appeal, the trial court matter: What happens when a party perfects an appeal of rendered judgment for Roccaforte and awarded damages, an interlocutory judgment that has not been severed from attorney's fees, and costs. The judgment was titled “FINAL the underlying action, and that action proceeds to trial and JUDGMENT”; it “denie[d] all relief no [sic] granted in this a final judgment? The trial court did not sever Roccaforte's judgment”; and it stated “[t]his is a FINAL JUDGMENT.” claims against the County 3 and denied “all relief not granted” The County was included in the case caption. No one objected in its final judgment. Ordinarily, under these circumstances, to the continuation of trial court proceedings despite the Roccaforte would have to complain on appeal that the statutory stay. trial court erroneously dismissed those claims. Roccaforte, however, did not complain about the County's dismissal in Greenway appealed, and Roccaforte cross-appealed, raising his appeal from the final judgment. His separate interlocutory as his only issues complaints regarding the trial court's appeal, then, rests on a precipice of mootness. JNOV on his claims against Greenway. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, rendering judgment 3 “As a rule, the severance of an interlocutory judgment that Roccaforte take nothing. Greenway v. Roccaforte, 2009 into a separate cause makes it final.” Diversified Fin. WL 3460683, at *6, 2009 Tex.App. LEXIS 8290, at *15 Sys., Inc. v. Hill, Heard, O'Neal, Gilstrap & Goetz, P.C., (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2009, pet. denied). 1 63 S.W.3d 795, 795 (Tex.2001) (per curiam). 1 Today, we deny that petition for review. *922 A. Roccaforte waived any complaint about the trial court's actions during the statutory stay. In Roccaforte's separate interlocutory appeal, the court of Although Roccaforte's interlocutory appeal was supposed to appeals made the following notation: stay all proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 the appeal, 4 Roccaforte did not object to the trial court's Escalante, 251 S.W.3d at 725. In Henry, the court held rendition of judgment while the stay was in effect. To the that a party's failure to object to the trial court's action in contrary, he affirmatively moved for entry of judgment. violation of the stay waived any error resulting from that Because a final judgment frequently moots an interlocutory action. Henry, 2005 WL 1320121, at *1–2, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 4310, at *4 (holding that trial court's grant of summary appeal, 5 we must decide whether the trial court's failure to judgment mooted interlocutory appeal challenging denial of observe the stay made the final judgment void or merely special appearance). We find particularly instructive a case voidable. If the final judgment is void, it would have no involving a trial court's rendition of final judgment while impact on this interlocutory appeal. Lindsay v. Jaffray, 55 an interlocutory appeal of a class certification order was Tex. 626 (Tex.1881) (“A void judgment is in legal effect pending: no judgment.”) (quoting FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS, § 117). 6 If voidable, then we must decide whether it moots this [I]f a trial court proceeds to trial proceeding. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d during the interlocutory appeal, the 860, 863 (Tex.2010) (observing that voidable orders must be class action plaintiff must inform corrected by direct attack and, unless successfully attacked, the court of section 51.014(b) and become final). We conclude it is voidable. request that the stay be enforced. If a court proceeds to trial over the 4 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 51.014(b); see objection of a class action plaintiff, the also TEX.R.APP. P. 29.5 (providing that “[w]hile an class action plaintiff could request a appeal from an interlocutory order is pending, the mandamus and this court would grant trial court retains jurisdiction of the case and unless it. However, if the class action plaintiff prohibited by statute may make further orders, including fails to inform the trial court of section one dissolving the order complained of on appeal”) 51.014(b), and allows the court to (emphasis added). proceed to trial, as happened here, the 5 *923 plaintiff waives the right to See, e.g., Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 316, 319 (Tex.2009) (“Appeals of some interlocutory orders object or request any relief on appeal. become moot because the orders have been rendered See TEX.R.APP. P. 33.1(a). We see moot by subsequent orders.”). this as no different from any other trial court error that is not preserved—it is 6 See also Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d waived. 860, 863 (Tex.2010) (noting that “[a] judgment is void ... when it is apparent that the court rendering Siebenmorgen v. Hertz Corp., No. 14–97–01012–CV, 1999 judgment had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, WL 21299, at *3, 1999 Tex.App. LEXIS 311, at *10– no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to 11 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 21, 1999, no pet.) enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act”) (dismissing as moot interlocutory appeal of order denying (quoting Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336, 346 class certification). (Tex.2005)). Two of our courts of appeals have held that the failure to A third court of appeals has implicitly concluded that parties object when a trial court proceeds despite the automatic stay can waive the right to insist on a section 51.014(b) stay. waives any error the trial court may have committed by See Lincoln Property Co. v. Kondos, 110 S.W.3d 712, 715 failing to impose it. See Escalante v. Rowan, 251 S.W.3d 720, (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). In that case, the court 724–25 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008), rev'd on other observed that the trial court's grant of summary judgment grounds, 332 S.W.3d 365 (Tex.2011) (per curiam); Henry while an interlocutory appeal was pending violated the v. Flintrock Feeders, Ltd., No. 07–04–0224–CV, 2005 WL statutory stay. Noting that “neither party requested a stay 1320121, at *1, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 4310, at *1 (Tex.App.- from this Court” and “both parties sought to commence the Amarillo June 1, 2005, no pet.) (mem.op.). In Escalante, ‘trial’ below by filing and/or arguing motions for summary the court of appeals held that a party's failure to object to judgment while this appeal was pending,” the court of appeals a trial court's ruling on summary judgment motions during did not conclude that the trial court's summary judgment the statutory stay “failed to preserve error as to any objection was void. Id. at 715. Instead, the appellate court held that that the summary judgment is voidable based on the stay.” the summary judgment mooted the interlocutory appeal. Id. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 at 715–16 (noting that the interlocutory class certification court signed a final judgment disposing of all parties and all order merged into the final judgment). The court concluded: claims and that Roccaforte did not present in his appeal from “By rendering a final judgment during this appeal, the trial that judgment the arguments he advances in this interlocutory court also rendered itself powerless to reconsider its class appeal. certification ruling were we to conclude here the ruling was entered in error.” Id. at 715. B. The trial court's final judgment implicitly modified its We agree with those decisions that have held that a party interlocutory order, and we treat this appeal as relating may waive complaints about a trial court's actions in to that final judgment. violation of the stay imposed by section 51.014(b). That [2] We have repeatedly held that the right of appeal should stay differs from a situation in which the relevant statute not be lost due to procedural technicalities. 8 Roccaforte vests “exclusive jurisdiction” in a particular forum. See, e.g., timely perfected appeals from both the interlocutory order Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 439, 60 S.Ct. 343, 84 and the final judgment, and this is not a situation in which L.Ed. 370 (1940) (noting that bankruptcy law in effect at the further proceedings mooted the issues raised in Roccaforte's time “vested in the bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction” interlocutory appeal. 9 and “withdr[ew] from all other courts all power under any circumstances”). For that reason, we have held that actions 8 See, e.g., Guest v. Dixon, 195 S.W.3d 687, 688 taken in violation of a bankruptcy stay are void, not just (Tex.2006) ( “[W]e have repeatedly stressed that voidable. Cont'l Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., 751 procedural rules should be construed and applied so S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tex.1988). 7 that the right of appeal is not unnecessarily lost to technicalities.”); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of 7 Gonzalez, 820 S.W.2d 121, 121–22 (Tex.1991) (per But see Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc., 881 F.2d 176, 178 curiam)(stating that procedural rules should be “liberally (5th Cir.1989) (holding that, under the 1978 Bankruptcy construed so that the decisions of the courts of appeals Act, “the better reasoned rule characterizes acts taken turn on substance rather than procedural technicality”). in violation of the automatic stay as voidable rather than void”); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, No. 04–06– 9 See, e.g., Isuani v. Manske–Sheffield Radiology Grp., 00504–CV, 2007 WL 1481574, at *2–3, 2007 Tex.App. P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.1991) (holding that LEXIS 3936, at *6–7 (Tex.App.-San Antonio May final judgment mooted interlocutory appeal of order 23, 2007, no pet.) (noting conflict between Sikes and granting or denying temporary injunction); Providian Continental Casing ); In re De La Garza, 159 S.W.3d Bancorp Servs. v. Hernandez, No. 08–04–00186–CV, 119, 120–21 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) 2005 WL 82197, at *1, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 288, at (same); Oles v. Curl, 65 S.W.3d 129, 131 n. 1 (Tex.App.- *2 (Tex.App.-El Paso Jan. 13, 2005, no pet.) (mem.op.) Amarillo 2001, no pet.)(same); Chunn v. Chunn, 929 (dismissing as moot interlocutory appeal from order S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no denying motion to compel arbitration, because trial court pet.) (same). entered an order compelling arbitration); Mobil Oil Corp. [1] But as we have noted, “a court's action contrary to a v. First State Bank of Denton, No. 2–02–119–CV, 2004 statute or statutory equivalent means the action is erroneous WL 1699928, at *1, 2004 Tex.App. LEXIS 6940, at *2 or ‘voidable,’ not that the ordinary appellate or other direct (Tex.App.-Fort Worth July 29, 2004, no pet.) (dismissing as moot interlocutory appeal from class certification procedures to correct it may be circumvented.” Mapco, order, because trial court subsequently vacated order, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.1990); cf. Univ. decertified class, and dismissed class action); Lincoln of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, Property Co. v. Kondos, 110 S.W.3d 712, 715–16 359 (Tex.2004) (noting that failure to comply with a non- (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (dismissing as moot jurisdictional statutory requirement may result in the loss interlocutory appeal of order granting class certification, of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and as trial court subsequently granted summary judgment compliance can be waived). That is the case here. The trial motion); see also Hernandez, 289 S.W.3d at 321 court's rendition of final judgment while the stay was in effect (acknowledging that a party may not, after trial and was voidable, not void, and Roccaforte's failure to object to an unfavorable judgment, prevail on a complaint that the trial court's actions waived any error related to the stay. the party's summary judgment motion should have been We must, therefore, confront the fact that the trial *924 granted, nor could a party complain of a failure to dismiss a health care liability claim based on an inadequate expert © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 report, after a full trial and evidence establishing the Local Government Code section 89.0041 provides: elements of that claim). (a) A person filing suit against a county or against a county [3] Our procedural rules provide that: official in the official's capacity as a county official shall After an order or judgment in a civil deliver written notice to: case has been appealed, if the trial (1) the county judge; and court modifies the order or judgment, or if the trial court vacates the order or (2) the county or district attorney having jurisdiction to judgment and replaces it with another defend the county in a civil suit. appealable order or judgment, the appellate court must treat the appeal as (b) The written notice must be delivered by certified or from the subsequent order or judgment registered mail by the 30th business day after suit is filed and may treat actions relating to the and contain: appeal of the first order or judgment as relating to the appeal of the subsequent (1) the style and cause number of the suit; order or judgment. The subsequent (2) the court in which the suit was filed; order or judgment and actions relating to it may be included in the original (3) the date on which the suit was filed; and or supplemental record. Any party may nonetheless appeal from the (4) the name of the person filing suit. subsequent order or judgment. (c) If a person does not give notice as required by this TEX.R.APP. P. 27.3. Here, although the trial court's final section, the court in which the suit is pending shall judgment did not expressly modify its interlocutory order, dismiss the suit on a motion for dismissal made by the it did so implicitly. Because the claims against the County county or the county official. had not been severed, the County remained a party to the TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODEE § 89.0041. In 2005, the underlying proceeding despite the interlocutory appeal. The Legislature amended the Government Code to provide that final judgment necessarily replaced the interlocutory order, “[s]tatutory prerequisites to a suit, including the provision of which merged into the judgment, 10 even though Roccaforte's notice, are jurisdictional requirements in all suits against a interlocutory appeal remained pending. Under our rules, governmental entity.” TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.034. however, we may treat this interlocutory appeal as an *925 appeal from the final judgment. That permits us to reach The County contends section 311.034 makes Roccaforte's the merits of Roccaforte's claims rather than dismiss the failure to comply with section 89.0041's notice requirements interlocutory appeal as moot. jurisdictional—an issue we have never decided. Our courts of appeals, however, have concluded that the notice 10 See Webb v. Jorns, 488 S.W.2d 407, 408–09 (Tex.1972) requirements are not jurisdictional, even in light of section (holding that interlocutory judgment merged into final 311.034. See El Paso Cnty. v. Alvarado, 290 S.W.3d judgment, which was then appealable). 895, 898–99 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.) (holding Although not relying on rule 27.3, the court of appeals took that section 89.0041 is not jurisdictional because section a similar approach, treating Roccaforte's appeal as though 311.034 applies only to prerequisites to file suit, not post- it were from the final judgment. 281 S.W.3d at 231 n. 1. suit notice requirements); Ballesteros v. Nueces Cnty., 286 Similarly, we treat Roccaforte's appellate complaints about S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) the trial court's grant of the County's jurisdictional plea as (same); 281 S.W.3d 230, 232–33 (same); Dallas Cnty. v. though they related to the appeal of the final judgment. We Coskey, 247 S.W.3d 753, 754–56 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. turn now to the merits of his claim. denied) (same); Dallas Cnty. v. Autry, 251 S.W.3d 155, 158 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (same); Cnty. of Bexar v. Bruton, 256 S.W.3d 345, 348–49 (Tex.App.-San Antonio III. The post-suit notice requirements are not 2008, no pet.) (same). jurisdictional. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 [4] We presume “that the Legislature did not intend to make sufficient because the purpose of the statute was to ensure the [provision] jurisdictional[,] a presumption overcome only notice, and that purpose was accomplished), Ballesteros by clear legislative intent to the contrary.” City of DeSoto v. Nueces Cnty., 286 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tex.App.- v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389, 394 (Tex.2009). The statutes' Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) (same), Dallas Cnty. v. Coskey, 247 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, language reflects no such intent here. Section 311.034 applies pet. denied) (same), and Dallas Cnty. v. Autry, 251 to prerequisites to suit, not notice requirements that can be S.W.3d 155, 158 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied) satisfied only after suit is filed. Compare TEX. GOV'T CODE (same), with 281 S.W.3d at 237 (holding that “[r]eading § 311.034, with TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODEE § 89.0041 a broad actual notice or service exception into the statute (requiring notice of cause number, court in which case is —without any attempt by plaintiff to comply—would, in filed, and date of filing). Nor does Local Government Code effect, largely eliminate the specified, additional written section 89.0041 show such intent: that section states that notice requirement of the statute”). That conflict gives us a trial court may *926 dismiss a case for noncompliance jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. TEX. GOV'T only after the governmental entity has moved for dismissal. CODE § 22.225(c), (e). TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODEE 89.0041(c) (“If a person does [5] Section 89.0041 ensures that the appropriate county not give notice as required by this section, the court in which officials are made aware of pending suits, allowing the county the suit is pending shall dismiss the suit on a motion for to answer and defend the case. See Howlett, 301 S.W.3d at dismissal made by the county or the county official.”). The 846 (“The apparent purpose of section 89.0041 is to ensure motion requirement means that a case may proceed against that the person responsible for answering and defending the those governmental entities that do not seek dismissal—in suit—the county or district attorney-has actual notice of the other words, that a county can waive a party's noncompliance. suit itself.”); Coskey, 247 S.W.3d at 757 (“Section 89.0041's This confirms that compliance with the notice requirements notice of suit requirement against a county serves the purpose is not jurisdictional. See Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359 of aiding in the management and control of the City's finances (“The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by and property....”). That purpose was served here—the county statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure must judge and the district attorney had notice within fifteen days be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”). We find of Roccaforte's filing, and they answered and defended the no basis upon which to conclude that the Legislature intended suit. Cf. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 360 (observing that “if section 89.0041 to be jurisdictional. in a particular case a governmental unit were not prejudiced by lack of notice and chose to waive it, we do not see how the statutory purpose would thereby be impaired”). The IV. Where the appropriate county officials receive statute was not intended to create a procedural trap allowing timely notice of the suit, the case should not be dismissed a county to obtain dismissal even though the appropriate if notice was provided by some means other than mail. officials have notice of the suit. See *927 Southern Surety Roccaforte provided timely notice of every item required Co. v. McGuire, 275 S.W. 845, 847 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso by section 89.0041, and the requisite officials received that 1925, writ ref'd) (holding that failure to present written claim notice. Did the Legislature intend to bar Roccaforte's claim, to commissioners' court as required by statute did not bar merely because that notice was hand-delivered rather than the claim, because “[t]he purpose of the statute was fully mailed? accomplished by [oral presentment]”); see also Coskey, 247 S.W.3d at 757 (“The manner of delivery specified by the Roccaforte argues that the County's actual notice of the suit statute assures that county officials will receive notice of a and his substantial compliance with section 89.0041 should suit after it has been filed to enable it to respond timely and suffice. A number of courts of appeals (though not the court of prepare a defense.”). Because those officers had the requisite appeals in this case) agree with him. 11 The County disagrees, notice, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing arguing that the statute requires strict compliance with its Roccaforte's claims. terms, and dismissal is mandated if those terms are not satisfied. V. Conclusion 11 Compare Howlett v. Tarrant Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 840, Roccaforte's claims against the County should not have been 847 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (holding dismissed for lack of notice. 12 We reverse the court of that substantial compliance with section 89.0041 was appeals' judgment as to those claims and remand the case © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 to the trial court for further proceedings. TEX.R.APP. P. since “the surest guide to legislative intent” is the language 60.2(d). lawmakers chose. 6 In other words, “Where text is clear, it is determinative of that intent.” 7 The Court today agrees 12 Because this issue is dispositive, we do not reach that nothing in Section 89.0041 relieves *928 Roccaforte Roccaforte's argument that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 preempts from compliance. So, to escape the statute's emphatic “shall section 89.0041's notice requirements. dismiss the suit” mandate, 8 the Court pivots on “actual notice” and “substantial compliance” and holds that the Justice WILLETT delivered a concurring opinion. statute's purpose was fulfilled via hand-delivery. 4 341 S.W.3d 919, 926 (explaining that compliance with Justice WILLETT, concurring in part. the notice requirements of Section 89.0041 of the I join Parts I–III of the Court's opinion. As for Part IV, I join Local Government Code “is not jurisdictional”) (citation the result but not the reasoning. There is a better approach, one omitted). more allegiant to the Legislature's words. Roccaforte's claim should proceed, but the reason is rooted not in his substantial 5 341 S.W.3d at 926. compliance but rather the County's substantial dalliance. 6 Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927, 930 (Tex.2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). *** 7 Id. Aristotle would have enjoyed this case, which perfectly 8 See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODEE § 89.0041(c). illustrates the challenge he recognized of reconciling the “absoluteness” of the written law with equity in the particular Honoring a statute's plain words is indispensable, even 1 if enforcing those words as written works an unpalatable case. Believing that “the equitable is superior” and that rigid result. To be sure, courts deviate from otherwise-clear laws must bend, 2 Aristotle urged “a correction of law where textual commands to avert “absurd” results or to vindicate it is defective owing to its universality.” 3 From Athens, constitutional principles. 9 But as a general matter, if the Greece to Athens, Texas (and beyond), judges still debate the legal deck is stacked via technical statutory requirements, the bounds of interpretive discretion—whether it is appropriate to temper the “absoluteness” of statutory mandates and Legislature should reshuffle the equities, not us. 10 ameliorate their seeming harshness. Millennia may have passed since Aristotle's Lyceum, but this great philosophical 9 The absurdity doctrine, rightly understood, is a safety and jurisprudential debate endures. valve reserved for truly exceptional cases, not just those where the mandated statutory outcome is thought unwise 1 or inequitable. See generally John F. Manning, The Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics bk. V, ch. 10. Absurdity Doctrine, 116 HARV. L.REV.. 2387 (2003). 2 Id. As Chief Justice Marshall famously put it, a court's allegiance to the text ceases when applying the text 3 Id. “would be so monstrous that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.” Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 203, 4 L.Ed. 529 I (1819). As the Court persuasively explains in Part III, the post-suit 10 The Legislature can, of course, if it wishes, statutorily notice requirements in Section 89.0041 are not jurisdictional, overturn today's holding that Section 89.0041 is nonjurisdictional and subject to an actual-notice meaning a County can waive a plaintiff's noncompliance. 4 exception. Here, the County objected to Roccaforte's noncompliance, prompting the Court to ask: “Did the Legislature intend to As for whether Section 89.0041's use of phrases like “shall bar Roccaforte's claim, merely because that notice was hand- deliver,” 11 “must be delivered,” 12 “as required,” 13 and delivered rather than mailed?” 5 If phrased that way, our “shall dismiss” 14 mandates strict compliance, I would recent and unanimous precedent answers the question “yes,” take the statute at face value. Beyond that, those desiring © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 additional reassurance that lawmakers intended what they the purpose of the statute was to ensure notice, and that enacted can find it in a properly contextual reading of other purpose was accomplished); Ballesteros v. Nueces Cnty., notice-related statutes. 286 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) (same); Dallas Cnty. v. Coskey, 247 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (same); 11 TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODEE § 89.0041(a). Dallas Cnty. v. Autry, 251 S.W.3d 155, 158 (Tex.App.- 12 Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (same)). Two of the three courts Id. § 89.0041(b). of appeals even cite as support two of our decisions 13 Id. § 89.0041(c). involving notice in other contexts. Coskey, 247 S.W.3d at 757 (“Both Artco–Bell Corp. and Cox Enterprises, 14 Id. Inc.. support a standard of substantial compliance with First, the Legislature, while omitting an actual-notice notice requirements under certain circumstances, and we exception from Section 89.0041, expressly included one conclude that standard applies in these circumstances.”) in the Tort Claims Act, stating the Act's pre-suit notice (citations omitted); Ballesteros, 286 S.W.3d at 571–72. A third court of appeals opinion in turn relies upon requirements “do not apply if the governmental unit has Coskey. See Autry, 251 S.W.3d at 158. actual notice....” 15 The Legislature understands how to Closer analysis reveals Coskey and Ballesteros offer let actual notice excuse technical noncompliance; it easily feeble support, as they misinterpret this Court's could have said actual notice suffices, thus obviating the holdings in Cox Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Austin need for service via certified or registered mail. Instead, Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.1986), and it opted against actual notice, presumably on purpose. For Artco–Bell Corp. v. City of Temple, 616 S.W.2d 190 better or worse, lawmakers enacted strict compliance, not (Tex.1981). The issue in Cox involved how much substantial compliance. Our interpretive focus, both textual particularity was required in notice. 706 S.W.2d at and contextual, must be on the law as written, and we should 960 (noting that “less than full disclosure is not substantial compliance” and that “the Open Meetings refuse to engraft what the Legislature has refused to enact. Act requires a full disclosure of the subject matter of the meetings”). Artco–Bell is likewise inapposite. 15 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 101.101(c). In Artco–Bell, the Court simply invalidated the Second, reading “actual notice” into Section 89.0041's post- notice requirement in a city's charter and held the suit notice requirement robs it of any real meaning and plaintiff had provided sufficient notice. 616 S.W.2d at 193–94 (“[W]e hold that the requirement of also makes Section 89.004's pre-suit notice requirement verification represents an unreasonable limitation on redundant. Section 89.004 forbids someone from suing a the City's liability and is invalid as it is contrary to county or county official “unless the person has presented the limitation of authority placed upon home rule the claim to the commissioners court and the commissioners cities....”) (footnote omitted). court neglects or refuses to pay all or part of the claim....” 16 Cox was about the specificity of notice; Artco–Bell This presentment requirement assures actual notice of a claim resulted in the invalidation of notice. In neither case before it is filed and was already on the books when Section did the Court craft an exception for notice. The lower 89.0041 was added in 2003. Logically then, Section 89.0041 courts' treatment of these cases was thus strained, must require something in addition to the preexisting notice and should not be taken as a correct reading of our jurisprudence on statutory notice requirements. and presentment requirements. 17 *929 The requisite officials here received notice, but they 16 TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODEE § 89.004(a). did not receive “requisite notice,” as the Court states. 18 The Court may deem it adequate, but it is irrefutably 17 Another point: As the Court notes, some courts not requisite. As the Court reads Section 89.0041, it is of appeals have concluded that a substantial- not only nonjurisdictional (I agree on this point), but also compliance exception lies hidden within Section nonmandatory. I acknowledge the statute's no-exceptions 89.0041, notwithstanding the statute's emphatic “shall mandate works a harsh result, 19 but to the degree this seems dismiss” mandate. 341 S.W.3d at 928 (citing Howlett v. Tarrant Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 840, 847 (Tex.App.- a trap for the unwary, it is a trap the Legislature left well Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (holding that substantial marked. compliance with Section 89.0041 was sufficient because © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 18 341 S.W.3d at 927. point, which on these facts is not whether the County sought dismissal, but when. A governmental body can 19 Had the County “timely asserted” Roccaforte's raise a jurisdictional bar like immunity from suit whenever noncompliance, dismissal would have been mandatory it pleases because “the trial court does not have—and under the statute's rigid, no-discretion mandate, thus never had—power to decide the case,” 21 thus making raising the question of whether Section 89.0041's notice regime is preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Univ. judgments forever vulnerable to delayed attack. Not so with of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, nonjurisdictional requirements like this, which are waived 359 (Tex.2004) (“The failure of a non-jurisdictional if not timely raised. Under our precedent, dismissal delayed requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss is sometimes dismissal denied: “The failure of a non- of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in and compliance can be waived.”). That question, while the loss of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and interesting legally, is not before us. compliance can be waived.” 22 Moreover, “if a governmental unit is to avoid litigation to which it should not be subjected because of lack of notice, it should raise the issue as soon as II possible.” 23 On these facts, there was no timely assertion, Having said all that, I agree with the Court that Roccaforte much less one made “as soon as possible.” 24 ultimately wins his notice dispute, but on different grounds. Instead of asking whether the Legislature meant to bar 21 In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 306 Roccaforte's claim, (Tex.2010) (citation omitted). I would rephrase the question in a manner less assaultive 22 Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359 (emphasis added). to the statutory text: Did the County effectively waive 23 Id. at 360. “Moreover, if in a particular case a Roccaforte's noncompliance by not timely asserting it? I governmental unit were not prejudiced by lack of notice believe so. 20 and chose to waive it, we do not see how the statutory purpose would thereby be impaired.” Id. 20 Waiver may actually be the wrong term; it may be 24 Reading Section 89.0041 in tandem with our more accurate to call this forfeiture. As the United settled precedent distinguishing mandatory requirements States Supreme Court explains: “Waiver is different from (waivable) from jurisdictional ones (nonwaivable) is forfeiture. Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the consistent with a textualist approach that integrates timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional established interpretive norms. For example, even the relinquishment of a known right.” United States v. most ardent textualist would read a statute of limitations Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d in light of the common-law rules of equitable tolling. 508 (1993) (emphasis added) (citations and quotation See Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 49, 122 S.Ct. marks omitted). In any event, under our definition: 1036, 152 L.Ed.2d 79 (2002) (“It is hornbook law that “[W]aiver” is the intentional relinquishment of limitations periods are customarily subject to equitable a right actually or constructively known, or tolling, unless tolling would be inconsistent with the intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that text of the relevant statute.”) (citations and quotation right. The elements of waiver include (1) an existing marks omitted); see also United States v. Beggerly, 524 right, benefit, or advantage held by a party; (2) U.S. 38, 48, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998). the party's actual or constructive knowledge of As Justice Scalia noted in Young, a limitations period its existence; and (3) the party's actual intent is subject to the principles of equitable tolling, so long to relinquish the right or intentional conduct as the statutory text does not preclude such tolling. inconsistent with the right. 535 U.S. at 47, 122 S.Ct. 1036. Same here, where Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 602–03 the Legislature drafts notice requirements in light of (Tex.2008) (citations omitted). our decisions differentiating between mandatory and *930 True, the County, after waiting for limitations jurisdictional provisions and the consequences that flow to expire, filed a motion for dismissal complaining that from each characterization. Roccaforte provided notice via personal service rather than We have held that waiver is decided on a case-by-case basis, registered or certified mail. I believe that obscures the key meaning courts look to the totality of the circumstances. 25 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (2011) 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 26 It is true that defendants may assert defenses like Here, *931 the County sought dismissal based on imperfect notice more than two years after suit was filed; more than limitations in the trial court even following extensive two years after the County filed its answer; more than two discovery and other pre-trial activity. See TEX.R. CIV. years after the County filed its special exceptions; after the P. 94 (affirmative defenses including limitations must be pleaded); TEX.R. CIV. P. 63 (pleadings may be County presented three County officials for deposition and amended without leave of court until seven days before defended those depositions; after the County sent written trial). Today's case, though, involves a statutory notice discovery requests; after the County deposed Roccaforte; and requirement that mandates action within a prescribed after the County filed a motion for continuance. If two-plus time, something Loutzenhiser held should be raised “as years qualifies as “timely asserted” or “as soon as possible”— soon as possible” since the statutory purpose is to avoid at least in the context of a statutory notice requirement litigation altogether. 140 S.W.3d at 360. commanding action—then these phrases have been drained Section 89.0041 may not be a prerequisite to bringing of all meaning. 26 Indeed, the only thing the County “timely suit, but it is a postrequisite to maintaining suit. In asserted” was limitations. I would disallow the County's my view, Section 89.0041, unlike the Tort Claims Act, does not allow actual notice to forgive defective belated insistence on dismissal given its decision to defend notice, but that does not mean actual notice may the case for so long, asserting noncompliance only after not affect the waiver inquiry of whether a defendant seizing tactical advantage via limitations, and thus materially “timely asserted” noncompliance. For reasons stated prejudicing Roccaforte. There is no countervailing prejudice above, I believe a county that quickly asserts statutory in allowing Roccaforte's suit to proceed against the County, noncompliance, even if it has actual notice, is entitled which can hardly argue at this late stage that imperfect to dismissal under Section 89.0041. But a county notice has harmed its legal position (unlike its fiscal position, with actual notice that untimely asserts noncompliance having underwritten years of legal and judicial expenses). On (here only after limitations had run two-plus years these facts, two-plus years of litigation activity to run out later) has waived its objection and is not entitled the limitations clock betrays the County's too-little, too-late to dismissal. See City of DeSoto v. White, 288 request for dismissal and constitutes waiver. S.W.3d 389, 400–01 (Tex.2009) (noting that a party that declines to act in light of “full knowledge” of 25 a defect in a nonjurisdictional notice requirement See Perry Homes, 258 S.W.3d at 589–91 (explaining generally waives any complaint). Any other result that a party waives an arbitration clause by engaging would incentivize counties to sit on their rights rather in substantial litigation to the other party's detriment or than assert them immediately. Here, the County would prejudice). be rewarded for wasting over two-years' worth of In Jernigan v. Langley, the Court considered whether judicial resources and taxpayer dollars in defending a a defendant physician waived his statutory right suit it could have easily dismissed from the outset. to contest the adequacy of the plaintiff's expert *** reports by waiting too long. 111 S.W.3d 153, 153 (Tex.2003). The Court held that delay does not always The Court's understandable desire to work an eminently fair result in waiver, but it does when the defendant's result has led it to revise the statute as desired rather than read silence or inaction for such a long period shows it as enacted. I favor a different approach to the same outcome. an intent to yield a known right. Id. at 157. I Roccaforte should win not because the Court waived the would hold that the County's actions are inconsistent Legislature's words but because the County did. with the intent to assert its statutory right to up- front dismissal based on defective notice. Moreover, Jernigan predates our 2004 decision in Loutzenhiser, All Citations which speaks specifically to statutorily mandated notice requirements involving governmental units and 341 S.W.3d 919, 32 IER Cases 346, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 says notice-based objections should be asserted “as soon as possible.” 140 S.W.3d at 360. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (1997) 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 138 30VII Transfer of Cause 30VII(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds or KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Other Securities Superseded by Rule as Stated in Boyd v. State, Tex.App.-Dallas, 30k387 Delivery or Filing and Service of Bond or March 31, 1998 Undertaking 30k387(6) Extension of time and relief in case of 959 S.W.2d 615 failure to file in time Supreme Court of Texas. Motion for extension of time to file cost bond John VERBURGT, individually and is necessarily implied when appellant, acting in good faith, files bond beyond time allowed a/n/f of Thomas Verburgt, Timothy by rule but within 15-day period in which Verburgt and Joseph Verburgt, Petitioners, appellant would be entitled to move to extend v. filing deadline. Rules App.Proc., Rule 41(a)(1, Patricia M. DORNER and the Methodist 2) (Repealed). Mission Home, Respondents. 989 Cases that cite this headnote No. 96–1026. | Argued April 24, 1997. | Decided Dec. 4, 1997. | Rehearing Overruled Feb. 13, 1998. Attorneys and Law Firms Father, in his individual capacity and as his children's next friend, sued various parties for intentional infliction of *615 Jaay D. Neal, San Antonio, for Petitioners. emotional distress and negligent interference with familial relationships. After father nonsuited one defendant, the Edward C. Mainz, Jr., San Antonio, Laurence E. Best, Steven 37th District Court, Bexar County, David Peeples, J., D. Naumann, Houston, for Respondents. granted summary judgment for remaining defendants. Father appealed. The Beaumont Court of Appeals, 928 S.W.2d 654, Opinion dismissed appeal for want of jurisdiction. Application for SPECTOR, J., Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, writ of error was filed. The Supreme Court, Spector, J., in which PHILLIPS, Chief Justice, GONZALEZ, HECHTS, held that motion for extension of time to file cost bond is and OWEN, Justices, join. necessarily implied when appellant, acting in good faith, files bond beyond time allowed by rule but within 15-day period In this case, we decide whether the court of appeals erred in in which appellant would be entitled to move to extend filing dismissing an appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant, deadline. John Verburgt, filed a cost bond on the thirty-fourth day after the trial court rendered judgment against him. Verburgt Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. mistakenly believed that he had timely complied with Rule 41(a)(1) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure in filing the bond Enoch, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Abbott and and did not concurrently move to extend the time to file under Hankinson, JJ., joined. Rule 41(a)(2). 1 We hold that a motion for extension of time is implied when a party, acting good faith, files a cost bond Baker, J., filed a dissenting opinion. within the fifteen-day period in which Rule 41(a)(2) permits parties to file a motion to extend. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to that court. West Headnotes (1) 1 The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure were renumbered and substantially revised on September 1, [1] Appeal and Error 1997. See 60 TEX. B.J. 876 (1997). All references to the Extension of time and relief in case of Rules of Appellate Procedure in this opinion are to the failure to file in time rules in effect before that date. 30 Appeal and Error © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (1997) 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 138 Verburgt, in his individual capacity and as his children's next friend, sued Constance Clear, Patricia Dorner, and We are, therefore, confronted with the the Methodist Mission Home for intentional infliction of question of whether the appellate rules emotional distress and negligent interference with familial condone a result that allows a litigant relationships. After Verburgt nonsuited Clear, the trial court who knows he is late with his bond to granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants. save his appeal, but rejects the appeal The judgment was signed on October 10, 1995. Because no of the litigant who erroneously, but motion for new trial was filed, Verburgt's cost bond was in good faith, believes he has timely due within thirty days, by November 9th. See TEX.R.APP. filed his bond and, thus satisfied, also believes he has no need to file for an P. 41(a)(1). 2 Verburgt did not file the *616 bond until extension of time. November 13th, nor did he file a motion to extend the time to file the bond within fifteen days of the bond's due date. See Id. Although it acknowledged the arbitrariness of dismissal TEX.R.APP. P. 41(a)(2). 3 under these circumstances, the court of appeals nevertheless believed that the interest in finality of judgments outweighed 2 Rule 41(a)(1) provides: the policy of disposing of appeals on their merits. Id. at 656. When security for costs on appeal is required, the bond or affidavit in lieu thereof shall be filed with In dismissing Verburgt's appeal, the appellate court also relied the clerk within thirty days after the judgment is largely upon a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals, signed, or, within ninety days after the judgment is Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). But signed if a timely motion for new trial has been filed the Court of Criminal Appeals itself recognized in Olivo that by any party or if any party has timely filed a request its approach to the perfection of appeals in criminal cases for findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case has differed significantly from our more liberal approach. tried without a jury. If a deposit of cash is made in See id. at 524–25; compare Jones v. State, 796 S.W.2d lieu of bond, the same shall be made within the same 183, 186–87 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (holding that Rule 83 period. of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure did not entitle 3 Rule 41(a)(2) provides: appellant who filed defective notice of appeal to amend An extension of time may be granted by the notice beyond the time allowed by Rule 41(a)(2) when the appellate court for late filing of a cost bond or appellant had not requested an extension of time under Rule notice of appeal or making the deposit required by 41(b)(2)) with Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern paragraph (a)(1) or for filing the affidavit, if such Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex.1991) (holding bond or notice of appeal is filed, deposit is made, that an appellate court may not dismiss an appeal when the or affidavit is filed not later than fifteen days after appellant filed the wrong instrument required to perfect the the last day allowed and, within the same period, appeal without giving the appellant an opportunity to correct a motion is filed in the appellate court reasonably the error). explaining the need for such extension. If a contest to an affidavit in lieu of bond is sustained, the time for filing the bond is extended until ten days after the This Court has never wavered from the principle that contest is sustained unless the trial court finds and appellate courts should not dismiss an appeal for a procedural recites that the affidavit is not filed in good faith. defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure would preserve the appeal. We have Several weeks later, the court of appeals ordered Verburgt repeatedly held that a court of appeals has jurisdiction over to show cause why it should not dismiss his appeal for any appeal in which the appellant files an instrument in a lack of jurisdiction. Verburgt's response demonstrated that bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction. his counsel had simply miscalculated the date the bond was Linwood v. NCNB Texas, 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex.1994); due. See 928 S.W.2d 654, 655. Initially, the court of appeals Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist., 813 S.W.2d at 500. Our decided to retain jurisdiction of Verburgt's appeal. But on decisions reflect the policy embodied in our appellate rules rehearing en banc, the court reversed itself. that disfavors disposing of appeals based upon harmless The court of appeals in this case recognized the “patent procedural defects. 4 See Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist., 813 unfairness” of the result it reached: S.W.2d at 500. Thus, we have instructed the courts of appeals to construe the Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (1997) 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 138 liberally, so that the *617 right to appeal is not lost by 5 The Texas Supreme Court cases cited by the dissenters imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the are distinguishable from this case. In Davies v. Massey, purpose of a rule. See Jamar v. Patterson, 868 S.W.2d 318, the appellant mailed his cost bond a day before it was 319 (Tex.1993); see also Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of due, but the bond was received eight days late. 561 Gonzalez, 820 S.W.2d 121, 121–22 (Tex.1991); Gay v. City S.W.2d 799, 800 (Tex.1978). We held that the appellant of Hillsboro, 545 S.W.2d 765, 766 (Tex.1977). timely perfected his appeal under Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 801. It presents no 4 inconsistency with this case. Glidden Company v. Aetna Under Rule 46(f), on motion to dismiss an appeal for a Casualty & Surety Company was a 1956 case in which defect in form or substance in any bond, “the appellate the Court held that the court of appeals should have court may allow the filing of a new bond or the making dismissed an appeal in which the appellant filed its of a new deposit in the trial court on such terms as the bond one day late. 155 Tex. 591, 291 S.W.2d 315, appellate court may prescribe.” Rule 83 provides that 317 (1956). At the time we decided Glidden, the rules “[a] judgment shall not be affirmed or reversed or an allowed for no extension of time to file a cost bond, appeal dismissed for defects or irregularities, in appellate regardless of good cause. See id. 291 S.W.2d at 318 procedure, either of form or substance, without allowing (“It is well settled, that the requirement that the bond be a reasonable time to correct or amend such defects or filed within thirty days is mandatory and jurisdictional, irregularities....” and that the time prescribed cannot be dispensed with or As the dissenting justice in the court of appeals pointed out, enlarged by the court for any reason.”). We disapprove of the result the court of appeals reached was not “absolutely Miller v. Miller, 848 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.App.—Texarkana necessary” under these facts. 928 S.W.2d at 657 (Duncan, J., 1993, no writ), El Paso Sharky's Billiard Parlor, Inc. v. dissenting) (“[T]he issue is not whether the rules condone a Amparan, 831 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, writ patently unfair result but whether they require it.”) (emphasis denied), and any other authorities in which the court of in original). Here, the court of appeals acknowledged that appeals has dismissed an appeal when the appellant has made a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's Verburgt demonstrated that he had made a bona fide attempt jurisdiction by filing a bond within the fifteen days of the to timely perfect an appeal. See id. at 655. date the bond was due. We hold that a motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant acting in good faith files a bond ENOCH, Justice, joined by ABBOTT and HANKINSON, beyond the time allowed by Rule 41(a)(1), but within the Justices, dissenting. fifteen-day period in which the appellant would be entitled to From today forward, one need no longer timely appeal to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule 41(a)(2). Our invoke an appellate court's jurisdiction. But just two months holding does not indefinitely extend the time in which parties ago, this Court retained the longstanding rule that only may perfect an appeal, as Justice Enoch implies. Instead, once a timely filed appeal invokes appellate jurisdiction. 1 We the period for granting a motion for extension of time under insisted that to perfect appeal in a civil case, the notice of Rule 41(a)(2) has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appeal must be filed within the time prescribed in the rules. appellate court's jurisdiction. It also does not alter the time See TEX.R.APP. P. 26.1. Further, we insisted that to extend for perfecting an appeal beyond the period authorized by Rule the time in which to file the notice of appeal, one must file 41(a). Nor does our holding undermine finality of judgments, not only the notice of appeal, but in addition “ a motion” as the court of appeals believed. See 928 S.W.2d at 656. that “must state: ... [among other things] the facts relied on to Parties who prevail in the trial court will still know within the reasonably explain the need for an extension.” TEX.R.APP. time specified in Rule 41(a)(2) whether their opponents will P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). Like our new rules, the plain language seek to perfect an appeal. We decline to elevate form over of the rule that applies to this case, Rule 41(a)(2), mandates substance, as the dissenters would. that the appeal be timely; consequently, it compels the result the court of appeals reached in this *618 case. Is this a bad Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals result? For the hopeful appellant, perhaps (assuming that the and remand to that court to allow it to determine whether appeal is, in fact, meritorious). But denuding the Court's rules Verburgt offered a reasonable explanation for his failure to to achieve the Court's chosen result is bad law. I dissent. timely file his bond. See TEX.R.APP. 41(a)(2). 5 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (1997) 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 138 1 In addition, we specifically stated that while other 500 (Tex.1991)); see also Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, appellate rules may be suspended from time to time 524 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (correctly noting that the “liberal for good cause, “an appellate court may ... not ... policy” espoused by this Court in Linwood and Grand Prairie alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.” “concerns the substitution of a correct instrument for an TEX.R.APP. P. 2 (emphasis added). incorrect instrument, which has been timely filed ”). Rule 41(a)(2) permits a party who fails to timely appeal to seek an extension of time. But to do so, the party has to file, I agree with the majority that “appellate courts should not within fifteen days of the original due date, both the cost bond dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect whenever any and a motion for extension of time reasonably explaining arguable interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure the need for the extension. The majority's holding, that an would preserve the appeal .” 959 S.W.2d at 616 (emphasis “implicit motion” is filed if a would-be appellant files late added)(citing Linwood and Grand Prairie ). 2 But surely that and files only a cost bond, 959 S.W.2d at 615, simply ignores interpretation must be arguable. Interpreting Rule 41(a)(2) in the rule's requirement that both instruments must be filed. contradiction to its plain language is not arguable; indeed, it Moreover, Rule 41(a)(2) gives the court of appeals discretion is remarkably harmful to the concept of justice. whether to allow an extension of time, but this discretion is triggered only by the filing of a motion reasonably explaining 2 In fact, the thrust of our new rules is to eliminate the the need for the extension. In the absence of a motion, the procedural traps often encountered under our former court of appeals' discretion is never invoked and the late–filed rules. See Nathan L. Hecht & E. Lee Parsley, Procedural cost bond has no effect. Here, Verburgt did not file a motion Reform: Whence and Whither, in MATTHEW BENDER to extend time, and he did not file the cost bond timely. He C.L.E. , PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE NEW simply did not do what Rule 41(a)(2) clearly requires. RULES OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1–12 (Nov.1997) (explaining that the 1997 revisions to The Court does not cite a single case holding that the the rules of appellate procedure “are meant to take the traps out of TRAP”). In its understandable zeal to get untimely filing of an appeal can still be a bona fide attempt rid of “traps,” however, the majority unfortunately has to invoke the court of appeals' jurisdiction. To the contrary, lost sight of the significant concept of timeliness as a we have consistently and routinely held that the appeal must prerequisite to proper invocation of the court of appeals' be filed timely. See Davies v. Massey, 561 S.W.2d 799, jurisdiction. As indicated above, even the new rules of 801 (Tex.1978) (“Filing a cost bond ... is a necessary and appellate procedure require, as they must, that a party jurisdictional step in perfecting an appeal.”); Glidden Co. v. must be timely to invoke the court of appeals' jurisdiction. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 155 Tex. 591, 291 S.W.2d 315, 318 Under any number of circumstances, time plays a critical role (1956) (“It is well settled ... that the requirement that the bond in justice. For example, statutes of limitation and repose exist be filed within thirty days is mandatory and jurisdictional.”). to ensure that claims are made in a timely fashion. See, e.g., Indeed, the court of appeals' decision in this case is predicated Trinity River Auth. v. URS Consultants, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 259, on this crucial point: 263 (Tex.1994) (“We start with the unassailable premise that [W]hile the supreme court has statutes of limitation, in general, serve a public function. They liberally construed the rules regarding ‘compel the exercise of a right of action within a reasonable the instruments necessary to confer time so that the opposing party has a fair opportunity to defend jurisdiction, we do not discern a retreat while witnesses *619 are available and the evidence is fresh in that court from the fundamental in their minds.’ ”) (quoting Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d requirement that in order to invoke the 18, 20 (Tex.1977)). Timely exercise of one's appellate rights jurisdiction of the court of appeals, is no less significant to predictability, and consequently, to some instrument, whether or not it is justice. Failure to timely file an appeal has always been a the correct instrument, must be timely jurisdictional error that precludes an appellate court from filed. reaching the merits. See Davies, 561 S.W.2d at 801; Glidden, 291 S.W.2d at 318. It rightfully should remain so. 928 S.W.2d at 656 (explaining two decisions on which the Court relies today: Linwood v. NCNB Texas, 885 The majority's flawed reasoning is also apparent from the S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex.1994) and Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. cases it cites. In Linwood and Grand Prairie, we held that Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (1997) 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 138 958 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.1997); Holmes v. Home State a party's bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's County Ins., 958 S.W.2d 381 (Tex.1997); Boyd v. jurisdiction will preserve its appeal. What is clearly apparent American Indem. Co., 958 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.1997) in these opinions is that the procedural defect, which rendered (Justice Hankinson, who joins me in this dissent, is not the party's effort at appeal only a bona fide attempt, was sitting in Boyd, and therefore joins this footnote only as correctable. Concomitantly, the hopeful appellant had the it relates to Harlan and Holmes ). obligation to correct this defect. But how would one correct untimeliness? One can't. Neither of these cases remotely BAKER, Justice, dissenting. signals a retreat from the principle that a party must timely The court of appeals reached the decision required by appeal to invoke the court's jurisdiction. applying the plain and unambiguous language of Rule 41(a) (2). See TEX.R.APP. P. 41(a)(1) and (2); Davies v. Massey, The majority responds to my criticism by claiming that its 561 S.W.2d 799, 801 (Tex.1978); Glidden Co. v. Aetna Cas. decision “does not indefinitely extend the time in which & Sur. Co., 155 Tex. 591, 291 S.W.2d 315, 318 (1956); parties may perfect an appeal” because parties supposedly see also Miller v. Miller, 848 S.W.2d 344, 345 (Tex.App.— “will still know within the time specified in Rule 41(a)(2) Texarkana 1993, no writ); El Paso Sharky's Billiard Parlor, whether their opponents will seek to perfect an appeal.” 659 Inc. v. Amparan, 831 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, S.W.2d at 617. My colleagues demonstrate that they do not writ denied). understand what they do. The “indefiniteness” has nothing to do with not knowing whether an appeal will be filed within The Court's opinion dispenses with Rule 41(a)(2)'s thirty days or forty-five days. It has everything to do with not requirements, and amends the rule by judicial fiat. The Court's knowing when the Court will simply “imply” a condition that opinion is contrary to its own precedent. See State Dept. of never occurred to reach the result it prefers. When next will Highways & Public Transportation v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d the Court “imply” filings that were never made? If the clear 235, 241 (Tex.1992)( “[W]e do not revise our rules by language of its own rules does not constrain the Court, then opinion.”); Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 915 what will? If this is not “indefinite,” then perhaps I do not (Tex.1992)(same). I would deny the writ 1 . Because the Court understand the meaning of the word. decides otherwise, I dissent. Finally, the majority mistakenly believes that ignoring its own 1 I also dissent to Verburgt's companion cases. See Boyd rules somehow enhances “fairness.” Playing by the rules is fair. Changing the rules to produce a particular result is not. v. American Indem. Co., 958 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.1997); Harlan v. Howe State Bank, 958 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.1997); Holmes v. Home State County Ins., 958 S.W.2d 381 The judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed. I (Tex.1997). dissent. 3 All Citations 3 Like Justice Baker, I also dissent to Verburgt's companion cases. See Harlan v. Howe State Bank, 959 S.W.2d 615, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 138 End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 § 22.004. Rules of Civil Procedure, TX GOVT § 22.004 Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Government Code (Refs & Annos) Title 2. Judicial Branch (Refs & Annos) Subtitle A. Courts Chapter 22. Appellate Courts Subchapter A. Supreme Court V.T.C.A., Government Code § 22.004 § 22.004. Rules of Civil Procedure Effective: September 1, 2011 Currentness (a) The supreme court has the full rulemaking power in the practice and procedure in civil actions, except that its rules may not abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive rights of a litigant. (b) The supreme court from time to time may promulgate a specific rule or rules of civil procedure, or an amendment or amendments to a specific rule or rules, to be effective at the time the supreme court deems expedient in the interest of a proper administration of justice. The rules and amendments to rules remain in effect unless and until disapproved by the legislature. The clerk of the supreme court shall file with the secretary of state the rules or amendments to rules promulgated by the supreme court under this subsection and shall mail a copy of those rules or amendments to rules to each registered member of the State Bar of Texas not later than the 60th day before the date on which they become effective. On receiving a written request from a member of the legislature, the secretary of state shall provide the member with electronic notifications when the supreme court has promulgated rules or amendments to rules under this section. (c) So that the supreme court has full rulemaking power in civil actions, a rule adopted by the supreme court repeals all conflicting laws and parts of laws governing practice and procedure in civil actions, but substantive law is not repealed. At the time the supreme court files a rule, the court shall file with the secretary of state a list of each article or section of general law or each part of an article or section of general law that is repealed or modified in any way. The list has the same weight and effect as a decision of the court. (d) The rules of practice and procedure in civil actions shall be published in the official reports of the supreme court. The supreme court may adopt the method it deems expedient for the printing and distribution of the rules. (e) This section does not affect the repeal of statutes repealed by Chapter 25, page 201, General Laws, Acts of the 46th Legislature, Regular Session, 1939, on September 1, 1941. (f) The supreme court shall adopt rules governing the electronic filing of documents in civil cases in justice of the peace courts. (g) The supreme court shall adopt rules to provide for the dismissal of causes of action that have no basis in law or fact on motion and without evidence. The rules shall provide that the motion to dismiss shall be granted or denied within 45 days of the filing of the motion to dismiss. The rules shall not apply to actions under the Family Code. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 § 22.004. Rules of Civil Procedure, TX GOVT § 22.004 (h) The supreme court shall adopt rules to promote the prompt, efficient, and cost-effective resolution of civil actions. The rules shall apply to civil actions in district courts, county courts at law, and statutory probate courts in which the amount in controversy, inclusive of all claims for damages of any kind, whether actual or exemplary, a penalty, attorney's fees, expenses, costs, interest, or any other type of damage of any kind, does not exceed $100,000. The rules shall address the need for lowering discovery costs in these actions and the procedure for ensuring that these actions will be expedited in the civil justice system. The supreme court may not adopt rules under this subsection that conflict with a provision of: (1) Chapter 74, Civil Practice and Remedies Code; (2) the Family Code; (3) the Property Code; or (4) the Tax Code. Credits Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 297, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 644, § 1, eff. June 13, 2001; Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch. 63, § 1, eff. May 11, 2007; Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 203 (H.B. 274), §§ 1.01, 2.01, eff. Sept. 1, 2011; Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 906 (S.B. 791), § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2011. V. T. C. A., Government Code § 22.004, TX GOVT § 22.004 Current through the end of the 2015 Regular Session of the 84th Legislature End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 § 21.049. Notice of Decision of Special Commissioners, TX PROPERTY § 21.049 Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Property Code (Refs & Annos) Title 4. Actions and Remedies Chapter 21. Eminent Domain (Refs & Annos) Subchapter C. Damages and Costs (Refs & Annos) V.T.C.A., Property Code § 21.049 § 21.049. Notice of Decision of Special Commissioners Currentness The judge of a court hearing a proceeding under this chapter shall inform the clerk of the court as to a decision by the special commissioners on the day the decision is filed or on the next working day after the day the decision is filed. Not later than the next working day after the day the decision is filed, the clerk shall send notice of the decision by certified or registered United States mail, return receipt requested, to the parties in the proceeding, or to their attorneys of record, at their addresses of record. Credits Added by Acts 1984, 68th Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 18, § 1(d), eff. Oct. 2, 1984. V. T. C. A., Property Code § 21.049, TX PROPERTY § 21.049 Current through the end of the 2015 Regular Session of the 84th Legislature End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Rule 11. Agreements To Be in Writing, TX R RCP Rule 11 Vernon's Texas Rules Annotated Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Part I. General Rules (Refs & Annos) TX Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 Rule 11. Agreements To Be in Writing Currentness Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of record. Credits Oct. 29, 1940, eff. Sept. 1, 1941. Amended by order of July 15, 1987, eff. Jan. 1, 1988. Vernon's Ann. Texas Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 11, TX R RCP Rule 11 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Evidence, and Rules of Appellate Procedure are current with amendments received through September 1, 2015. Bar Rules, Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Code of Judicial Conduct, and Rules of Judicial Administration are current with amendments received through September 1, 2015. Other state court rules and selected county rules are current with rules verified through June 1, 2015. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Docket Style and Number: Application of Sharyland Utilities, L.P. to d. submit a copy of the order for publication in the Texas Register. Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the Proposed 3. These forms may be changed in response to comments received on Antelope-Elk Energy Center to White River 345-kV Transmission Line or before January 31, 2014. Any interested party may submit writ- in Hale and Floyd Counties, Docket Number 42063. ten comments to Martha Newton, Rules Attorney, at P.O. Box 12248, The Application: The application of Sharyland Utilities, L.P. is desig- Austin, TX 78711, or [email protected]. nated as the Antelope-Elk Energy Center to White River 345-kV Trans- Dated: December 12, 2013 mission Line Project. The facilities include construction of a new sin- gle circuit 345-kV line on double-circuit capable structures. The pro- ________________________________________ posed transmission line will connect the Golden Spread Electric Co- Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice operative, Inc. Antelope-Elk Energy Center, in Hale County, to Shary- land's proposed White River Station in Floyd County. The total esti- __________________________________________ mated cost for the project ranges from approximately $142,167,000 to Paul W. Green, Justice $158,120,000 depending on the route chosen. __________________________________________ The proposed project is presented with twenty-one (21) alternate routes and is estimated to range from 50.42 miles to 57.86 miles (approxi- Phil Johnson, Justice mately 55 miles) in length. Any of the routes or route segments pre- __________________________________________ sented in the application could, however, be approved by the commis- sion. Don R. Willett, Justice Persons wishing to intervene or comment on the action sought should __________________________________________ contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas by mail at P.O. Box Eva M. Guzman, Justice 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326 or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll-free at (888) 782-8477. The deadline for intervention in this pro- __________________________________________ ceeding is January 27, 2014. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals Debra H. Lehrmann, Justice with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission through Relay Texas by dialing 7-1-1. All comments should reference Docket Num- __________________________________________ ber 42063. Jeffrey S. Boyd, Justice TRD-201305970 _________________________________________ Adriana A. Gonzales Rules Coordinator John P. Devine, Justice Public Utility Commission of Texas _________________________________________ Filed: December 16, 2013 Jeffrey V. Brown, Justice ♦ ♦ ♦ Supreme Court of Texas TRD-201305907 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Martha Newton (Editor's Note: On December 12, 2013, the Supreme Court of Texas Rules Attorney filed Misc. Docket No. 13-9171, Order Approving Forms for Expedited Supreme Court of Texas Foreclosure Proceedings, in the Texas Register office. In accordance Filed: December 12, 2013 with Texas Government Code, §2002.014, which permits the omission of material which is "cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise inexpedi- ♦ ♦ ♦ ent," the forms are not included in the print version of the Texas Regis- Orders Adopting Amendments to Texas Rules of Civil ter. The forms are available in the on-line version of the December 27, Procedure, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Form 2013, issue of the Texas Register.) of the Appellate Record Misc. Docket No. 13-9171 (Editor's Note: On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of Texas ORDER APPROVING FORMS FOR EXPEDITED FORECLOSURE filed Misc. Docket No. 13-9165, Order Adopting Texas Rule of Civil PROCEEDINGS Procedure 21c and Amendments to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 4, 21, 21a, 45, 57, and 502; Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6, 9, ORDERED that: and 48; and the Supreme Court Order Directing the Form of the Ap- 1. Pursuant to the Act of May 27, 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S. (HB 2978) and pellate Record, in the Texas Register office. In accordance with Texas section 22.018 of the Texas Government Code, the Supreme Court of Government Code, §2002.014, which permits the omission of material Texas approves the following set of forms for use in expedited foreclo- which is "cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise inexpedient," the rules sure proceedings under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. are not included in the print version of the Texas Register. The rules are available in the on-line version of the December 27, 2013, issue of 2. The Clerk is directed to: the Texas Register.) a. file a copy of this order with the Secretary of State; IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS b. cause a copy of this order to be mailed to each registered member of Misc. Docket No. 13-9165 the State Bar of Texas by publication in the Texas Bar Journal; ORDER ADOPTING TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 21c c. send a copy of this order to each elected member of the Legislature; AND AMENDMENTS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and IN ADDITION December 27, 2013 38 TexReg 9683 4, 21, 21a, 45, 57, AND 502; TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PRO- John P. Devine, Justice CEDURE 6, 9, AND 48; AND THE SUPREME COURT ORDER DI- ___________________________ RECTING THE FORM OF THE APPELLATE RECORD Jeffrey V. Brown, Justice ORDERED that: IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 1. Pursuant to section 22.004 of the Texas Government Code, and in accordance with Misc. Docket No. 12-9206, as amended by Misc. Misc. Docket No. 13-003 Docket Nos. 13-9092 and 13-9164, Order Requiring Electronic Filing ORDER ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXAS RULES OF in Certain Courts, the Supreme Court of Texas adopts Rule of Civil APPELLATE PROCEDURE Procedure 21c and amends Rules of Civil Procedure 4, 21, 21a, 45, 57, and 502 and Rules of Appellate Procedure 6, 9, and 48. ORDERED that: 2. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.4, the Supreme 1. Pursuant to section 22.108 of the Texas Government Code, the Court Court orders that the appellate record be in the form attached as Ap- of Criminal Appeals amends Rules of Appellate Procedure 6, 9, 37, pendix C. 48, 68, 70, 71, and 73, Appendix C, Appendix F: Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Appendix G; Appendix E: Order Directing 3. By order dated August 16, 2013, in Misc. Docket No. 13-9128, the Form of the Appellate Record in Criminal Cases and Appendix H: the Court proposed the adoption of Rule of Civil Procedure 21c and Order Regarding Court of Appeals Clerk Preparing Record to Send to amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure 4, 21, 21a, and 502; Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals is repealed, effective January 1, 2014. Appellate Procedure 6 and 9; and Appendix C to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court also invited public comment. Following public 2. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.4, the Court of comment, the Court made revisions to the rules and to the appendix. Criminal Appeals orders that the appellate record be in the form at- This order incorporates those revisions and contains the final version tached as Appendix C. of the rules and appendix, effective January 1, 2014. 3. By order dated September 18, 2013, in Misc. Docket No. 13-2, the 4. These rules supersede all local rules and templates on electronic fil- Court proposed the adoption of Rules of Appellate Procedure 6, 9, 68, ing, including all county and district court local rules based on e-filing and 73, the Appendix: Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Rule templates; the justice court e-filing rules, approved in Misc. Docket 34.4 and Appendix C; and Appendix G. The Court also invited public No. 07-9200; the Supreme Court e-filing rules, approved in Misc. comment. Following public comment, the Court made revisions to the Docket No. 11-9152; the appellate e-filing templates, approved in rules and to the appendix. This order incorporates those revisions and Misc. Docket 11-9118; and local rules of courts of appeals based on contains the final version of the rules and appendix, effective January those templates. 1, 2014. 5. The Clerk is directed to: 4. These rules supersede all local rules of the courts of appeals on electronic filing. a. file a copy of this order with the Secretary of State; 5. The Clerk is directed to: b. cause a copy of this order to be mailed to each registered member of the State Bar of Texas by publication in the Texas Bar Journal; a. file a copy of this order with the Secretary of State; c. send a copy of this order to each elected member of the Legislature; b. cause a copy of this order to be mailed to each registered member of and the State Bar of Texas by publication in the Texas Bar Journal; d. submit a copy of the order for publication in the Texas Register. c. send a copy of this order to each elected member of the Legislature; and Dated: December 13th, 2013. d. submit a copy of the order for publication in the Texas Register. ___________________________ SIGNED AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2013. Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge ___________________________ _________________________ Paul W. Green, Justice Michael Keasler, Judge ___________________________ _________________________ Phil Johnson, Justice Lawrence E. Meyers, Judge ___________________________ _________________________ Don R. Willett, Justice Barbara Hervey, Judge ___________________________ _________________________ Eva M. Guzman, Justice Tom Price, Judge ___________________________ _________________________ Debra H. Lehrmann, Justice Cathy Cochran, Judge ___________________________ _________________________ Jeffrey S. Boyd, Justice Paul Womack, Judge ___________________________ 38 TexReg 9684 December 27, 2013 Texas Register
5 Cases that cite this headnote 4 Cases that cite this headnote © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 John v. State, 826 S.W.2d 138 (1992) [5] Action Opinion Change of Character or Form PER CURIAM. Eminent Domain Objections and Exceptions [1] This is a condemnation case. At issue is whether 13 Action landowners are entitled to notice providing an opportunity 13II Nature and Form to timely object after a condemnation award is filed with 13k36 Change of Character or Form the trial court. The court of appeals held that Paul F. 148 Eminent Domain John, Lillie John and John's Welding & Construction Inc. 148III Proceedings to Take Property and Assess (collectively “the Johns”) did not file timely objections to the Compensation condemnation award because the timetable for objecting to 148k225 Assessment by Commissioners, the award starts with the filing of the award, not the sending Appraisers, or Viewers 148k235 Objections and Exceptions or receiving of notice. A majority of this court holds that, in Filing timely objections in condemnation a condemnation proceeding, the parties' time to object to the proceeding invokes jurisdiction of trial court special commissioners' award is tolled until the clerk sends and transforms administrative proceeding into the required notice pursuant to section 21.049 of the Texas pending cause. V.T.C.A., Property Code § Property Code. 21.049. The state commenced an eminent domain action to