Gattis v. Duty
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6975
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Williamson County court officials adopted a 2010-11 budget with a new line item for a “Legal Advisor to the Commissioners Court.”
- The September 28, 2010 meeting funded a $101,802 transfer from the county attorney’s budget to the county judge’s budget to finance the new position.
- Duty, the Williamson County Attorney, spoke against the transfer at the September 28 meeting.
- On October 5, 2010, the commissioners court re-adopted the transfer with more detailed notice.
- Duty filed suit on September 30 alleging the September 28 OMA notice was defective and sought injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
- The district court denied the plea to the jurisdiction; the court of appeals reverses, holds Duty lacks standing in any capacity, and dismisses the claims for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duty has standing to challenge the September 28 OMA notice. | Duty argues she has standing as a taxpayer or as the county attorney. | Defendants contend no live controversy exists because the October 5 re-adoption mooted the OMA issue and Duty lacks injury distinct from the public. | Duty lacks standing; OMA claim moot; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Duty has taxpayer standing to challenge the October 5 LG code transfer under 111.0675 and 111.070. | Duty asserts a taxpayer injury from alleged code violations. | Duty cannot show a violation of 111.0675 or 111.070 as applied to the October 5 transfer; transfer was from one budget item to another. | No taxpayer standing; alleged statutory violations do not create a permissible taxpayer claim. |
| Whether Duty has official-capacity standing to challenge the October 5 LG code transfer. | Duty claims a distinct official interest as county attorney. | Official-capacity standing denied because the county attorney’s interests are aligned with the county and the commissioners court has authority to hire outside counsel. | No official-capacity standing; court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Birkman, 266 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008) (UDA/UDJA and budgeting transfers; relevance to standing and authority)
- Weatherford v. City of San Marcos, 157 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004) (OMA context and mootness considerations)
- Stop the Ordinances Please, 306 S.W.3d 919 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (standing; public-right challenges to ordinances and notices)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (taxpayer standing principle; illegal expenditure vs. public benefit)
- Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom v. Saenz, 319 S.W.3d 914 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (taxpayer standing; public funds and standing limitations)
- Hoffman v. Davis, 100 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1937) (taxpayer standing origins; general public injury)