431) adjoining part of Tyler Pipe Foundry Property [sic]." To advance to the general election, a candidate must win a majority (over 50 percent) of the vote. App. 1979), the Supreme Court, writing on whether there was evidence to support the findings of the lower courts, held, "It is fundamental that these fact findings must be upheld by us if there is more than a scintilla of evidence in support thereof. This Texas-related article is a sprout; we plan on making it grow in the future. As the rates are susceptible to change and vary across the state and counties, it might be worth knowing the exact sum before bringing your case to court. COLLEY, Justice. 1996). He was re-elected to the District Court in 2012 and 2016. The result of the holding of the majority would be that any landowner on a road would be able to control the route of any public road and thereby usurp the authority of the county commissioners. While most district courts try both criminal and civil cases, in the more densely populated counties the courts may specialize in civil, criminal, juvenile, or family law matters.
The information obtained from our searches is not to be used for any unlawful purposes. The officers removed Lackey from the patrol car and requested another patrol car to help in transportation. That is, that the time and manner of posting the notice realistically satisfies the purposes of the statute, citing one of our cases, Stelzer v. Huddleston, 526 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1975, writ dism'd). %PDF-1.6
%
Call, or visit the court's website if listed above. Performance & security by Cloudflare. State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County Annotate this Case. In pertinent part, the original version read: "Notice of a meeting must be posted for at least the three days preceding the day of the meeting." Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 97, 292 S.W.2d 324, 328 (1956); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Matagorda County Drainage District, 597 S.W.2d 910, 911-912 (Tex. 1998). ), The court in Common Cause further said, "We agree that the greater weight of Texas authority holds that only substantial compliance is required. The officers agreed that Lackey was not truthful when she accused Appellant of putting his hand in her pocket. From our reading of Compton, supra, as well as Moore v. Commissioners Court of McCulloch County, 239 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1932, writ ref'd), and Meyer v. Galveston H. S.A. Ry. The difficulty in applying such rule here is obvious. *Not location specific. Crim. Panel consisted of Worthen, J., and Griffith, J. art. App. Your IP: District Court Judge: District 7 Judge Fowler, Bettendorf, was appointed to the district court bench in July of 2018. The trial court granted the appellee's motion for summary judgment. I would hold that the posting of the notice for 72 hours before the meeting of the Commissioners Court of Smith County, together with the freeholders' petition which was posted for twenty-one days in three public places, two in the vicinity of the road to be closed, was substantial compliance with the Open Meetings Act and not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. or account registration. Below is a directory of court locations in Smith County. Commissioner Ammons testified the matter had been discussed by the Commissioners "over a long period of time," and that two notices of the meeting to consider it were posted by the County Engineer and a man named Sid Emmons in the vicinity of the segment of the road to be closed, and that the petition was posted at three places for twenty days prior to the action of the Commissioners Court on August 24, 1981. 183 0 obj
<>
endobj
We hold that the commissioners court was bound to comply literally with the provisions of Section 3A(h). The evidence further shows that the main entrances to the first floor of the Smith County Courthouse are locked between the hours of 7:00 and 8:30 p.m. on Fridays, and remain locked until 6:00 or 6:30 a.m. on the Monday following. Take the final paperwork with you to the court and attend the hearing. 6252-17 (Vernon Supp. App. Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Website. The judge will review it to decide whether your financial situation is dire enough to grant relief. The bag had not been in the car when the officers began their patrol. Crim. In the present case, Appellant has failed to demonstrate or even allege that TDCJ is improperly cumulating his sentences for the two offenses. 1985) were not posted in substantial or literal compliance therewith. 6252-17, although mandatory, were subject to the substantial compliance rule, citing inter alia, Lipscomb Independent School District v. County School Trustees, 498 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1980). He earned his BA degree from Augustana College in 1990, his MBA degree from Saint Ambrose University in 1997 and his. art. RecordsFinder searches is accurate or up to date. Website: http://www.smith-county.com/. County argues that the substantial evidence rule applies here, and that the evidence produced at trial reasonably supports the orders of the commissioners court, and thus the judgment below should not be disturbed. However, these requirements are not absolute, and cumulation orders containing less information have been held valid. The record also discloses that the Commissioners had informally discussed the closing of the road several times but that formal action was taken by them only on August 24, 1981, after the posting of the freeholders' petition on August 3, 1981. In Ex parte San Migel, 973 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. Visit Site . DINARIO JONES, APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH . Cloudflare Ray ID: 7c09b5166aa242e4 Additionally, Landowners sought cancellation of said deed, and a permanent injunction, enjoining the county from closing such road segment, and enjoining Tyler Pipe from occupying or obstructing the same. On Friday, August 21, 1981, at 9:00 a.m., notice of the agenda for the meeting of August 24, 1981, was posted on a bulletin board in the hallway of the first floor inside the Smith County Courthouse. Is any of the above incorrect? ." She told them that she had a light out and that the other car was following her home. Your use of RecordsFinder is conditioned on your Appellant was removed from the patrol car and was found to have been sitting on a bag of. review and acceptance of our, https://recordsfinder.com/court/courthouses/tx/smith/tyler/smith-county-7th-district-court, https://www.smith-county.com/Government/ElectedOfficials/DistrictClerk/Default.aspx. App. 2001). I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Email: [emailprotected] Williams v. Castleman, 112 Tex. The officer concluded that Appellant was intoxicated. art. Columbiana No. a resident of his or her respective judicial district for at least two years. 100 N Broadway, Rm 203, Tyler, TX75702-7236 State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County Annotate this Case. Texas County Courts at Law Crim. A . The Texas trial court system consists of District Courts, Criminal District Court, Constitutional County Courts, County Courts at Law, Statutory Probate Courts, Justice Courts, and Municipal Courts. There might be other court fees, such as those for making copies or serving your spouse, if you need it. 393-395 of the Deed Records of Smith County, Texas. You will have to prove you did it when finalizing your case, so request a return receipt when mailing the form. All costs herein are assessed against appellees, Smith County and Tyler Pipe Industries of Texas, Inc., jointly and severally. This review must employ appropriate deference to prevent an appellate court from substituting its judgment for that of the fact finder, and any evaluation should not substantially intrude upon the fact finder's role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony of the witnesses. Crim. 162.243.84.187 Appellant was observed on the videotape moving about in the car. The majority opinion fails to distinguish the facts in the instant case. 2008 2023 PeopleConnect, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Officers did not see the bag when they put Appellant in the patrol car. 007-0375-18) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed. We reverse and render in part, and reverse and remand with instructions in part. Judge Suzanne Smith. Beaumont 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e. No property right of appellants has been taken or denied. The minutes of the Commissioners Court of the meeting of August 3, 1981, indicate that a request for a public hearing for the purpose of closing a portion of County Road # 431 as noted on attached plat was item 5 on the regular agenda. Under the record I find no merit in appellants' point seven. 1979), Judge Pope wrote, "The judgment of a trial court will not be set aside if there is any evidence of a probative nature to support it, and a court of civil appeals cannot substitute its findings of fact for those of the trial court if there is any evidence in the record to sustain the trial court's findings.". Pay the filing fee and take the copies of the documents. dism'd, 65 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. Gene Caldwell, Bain, Files, Allen Caldwell, Tyler, for appellees. To learn more, click the following link: Do not sell my info, Smith County Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, Smith County Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Smith County Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Smith County Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, Smith County Justice of the Peace Precinct 5. Texas County Courts ), was a summary judgment case involving the Texas Open Meetings Act. The freeholders' petition read as follows: The record indicates that the posting of the petition was considered by the Commissioners Court at the August 3, 1981, meeting which was open to the public. George Thornton, Joe Davenport and Glenn Ellerd, plaintiffs/appellants (Landowners), appeal from a take-nothing judgment rendered in a bench trial in their suit against Smith County, County Judge Bob Hayes, Smith County's four commissioners and Tyler Pipe Industries of Texas, Inc. (Tyler Pipe), defendants/appellees. V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF . App. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. The movements that Appellant made were similar to the movements made by Lackey, as if he were also attempting to get something out of his pocket. In this direct attack on the orders of the commissioners court, Landowners seek to void the August 24th and August 31st orders of the commissioners court on the ground that the written notices required by TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. ch. In the case of Parkey v. Archer County, 61 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1933, writ ref'd), the court said: The majority relies upon Compton v. Thacker, 474 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e. The McConnell court cited Santos v. Guerra, 570 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e. According to the state courts website, the presiding judge may be a "regular elected or retired district judge, a former judge with at least 12 years of service as a district judge, or a retired appellate judge with judicial experience on a district court."[4]. 12-22-00032-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS REGINALD WAYNE BIGGS, APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE 7TH V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Reginald Biggs appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Clerk Name: Lois Rogers. This is not to say, however, that the commissioners court may not by appropriate orders, based on substantial evidence, reasonably supporting the same, discontinue county road 431 or otherwise alter or re-route said road, or any portion thereof agreeable to the provisions of the County Road and Bridge Act, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. 1st called session, p. 20, 1884 Tex.Gen Laws vol. Crim. Conducting a search on Recordsfinder.com is subject to our. County Judge Bob H. Hayes testified at trial, that at the August 24th meeting, the motion to close the road segment was adopted by unanimous vote. ch. 6702-1, Sections 2.001, et seq. Appellants contend in their first point that the trial court's finding that the Smith County Commissioners Court substantially complied with the Open Meetings Law is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence because the evidence demonstrates that the Commissioners Court failed to post the agenda for their meetings of August 24 and August 31, 1981, in a place readily accessible to the general public at all times for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled meeting. 2001). The Smith County clerk filing fees are around $300. Crim. No legal advice is offered here and this site is not an alternative to competent legal counsel. If any of these apply to you, contact the court to verify they observe the exemption. A videotape was introduced and narrated by the officer. We sever out those portions of the judgment below denying the declaratory relief sought by Landowners, and here render judgment, declaring the orders of the Smith County Commissioners Court dated August 24, 1981, and August 31, 1981, closing the segment of Jim Hogg Road, and authorizing Honorable Bob H. Hayes, County Judge of Smith County, to execute a deed to Tyler Pipe to be null and void. services. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. District Court Administrator: Judge D. Scott Smith Lynn Ansley. See Jones, 944 S.W.3d at 648. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 15 {52} In place of actual evidence, JFS invited the inference that, . Texas Revised Civil Statutes art. below is accurate or complete. App. 1985), which provides in part: Articles cited are Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated (Vernon) unless otherwise indicated. . Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram. You may be shocked by the information found in your 6252-17, held, "The law appears settled that the notice provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act are subject to the substantial compliance rule.". 1975). Links to District Court Electronic Case Files. On appeal, Appellant complains of legal and factual insufficiency, and a void cumulation order. APPELLANT . The Amarillo court in Lipscomb held that notice of the meeting of the County Board of Trustees set for Tuesday, May 26, 1970, which was posted on Friday, May 22, 1970, inside the courthouse at about 5:00 p.m. constituted a substantial compliance with the notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384, 389 (Tex. Services are provided and admissions/referrals are made without regard to race, color, religious creed, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or national origin. Our court in Stelzer v. Huddleston, supra, wrote that substantial compliance is achieved when the action of the governmental body "provides realistic fulfillment of the purpose for which the mandate was incorporated in the statute," Id. Thornton v. Smith, Both cases held that the determination by a government body that an emergency existed which excused, Full title:George THORNTON, Joe Davenport and Glenn Ellerd, Appellants, v. SMITH. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE Both Stelzer and Lipscomb are inapposite here because the language of Subsection (h) was drastically changed by the 1975 amendments. [6][7], Though Texas officially has closed primaries (requiring that voters declare party affiliation in advance in order to participate), the state's primaries are functionally open: any registered voter may vote in any single party's primary if they have not voted in the primary of another party. 12-01-00135-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS . Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ch. Following the hearing, the district court dismissed Smith's suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appeal from the 7th District Court, Smith County, Donald Carroll, J. Allan Jackson, Tyler, for appellants. endstream
endobj
startxref
Appellants in their second, third, fourth and fifth points contend the finding of the trial court that the Commissioners Court substantially complied with the Open Meetings Act is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence because the evidence demonstrates that (2) the Commissioners Court failed to consider or certify the Petition of Freeholders at any meeting of the Commissioners Court open to the public; (3) the Commissioners Court considered closing the subject portion of Jim Hogg road in discussions and meetings not open to the public; and (4) the Commissioners Court considered its agreement to deed the subject portion of Jim Hogg road to Tyler Pipe, and the compensation it would receive therefor, and reached that agreement in discussion and meetings not open to the public. 6252-17 Section 3A(h) (Vernon Supp. ), a prior case by that court, holding that the substantial compliance rule was applicable to meeting the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. The rear seat was removed and a bag of marijuana was found where Lackey had been sitting. The question presented is not whether the action taken by the commissioners court is supported by substantial evidence, but rather should the actions of the commissioners court be voided because of the claimed violations of the requirements of Subsection (h) of Section 3A of the Open Meetings Act. Court is held at Smith County Courthouse, 100 N Broadway. App. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. The foregoing cited cases seem to contain the latest expression of the Texas courts on the Open Meetings Act. App. Complaints of discrimination may be filed with the Seventh Administrative Districe Office. Adoption, Delayed Registration of Foreign Birth, Judicial Admissions, Juvenile and Child Protective Proceedings, Juvenile Guardianships, Mental Illness, Name Changes, Parental Waivers, Personal Protection Orders, Surrendered New Born Child, Treatment of Infectious Disease, Violation of Personal Protection Orders, Young Adult Voluntary Foster Care Texas Court of Appeals Smith County, Phone Number: 903-590-1640 201 0 obj
<>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<879144A5D11E954D810B1A0C214E2285>]/Index[183 26]/Info 182 0 R/Length 93/Prev 226509/Root 184 0 R/Size 209/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream
Westminster Housing Benefit Opening Times,
How Does Muscular Dystrophy Affect Emotional Development,
Asl's Complex Verb System Is Made Up Of:,
Ramco Rp55 Press Parts,
Who Wrote And Sang Funny How Time Slips Away,
Articles OTHER