Kenneth L. Haedge, Dale C. Tippit, Denver Tippit, Case S. Jones and Clinton H. Shed v. Central Texas Cattlemen's Association, 07-15-00368-CV

CTCA governance and membership arise from a leased cattle-grazing arrangement on Fort Hood land; CTCA membership gives the right to graze cattle and is governed by bylaws and resolutions.
The Army allows grazing but restricts access to certain areas, including the PD-94 and Live Fire zones, requiring Range Control permission for pens.
In 2014–2015, appellants built pens in restricted areas without Range Control approval, allegedly misleading Range Control and Board members.
CTCA’s Board later held a special meeting, cancelled appellants’ shares, and notified members of potential sanctions under bylaws Article XX–XXI.
Appellants sued CTCA and Board members for fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and defamation; CTCA moved for summary judgment arguing judicial non-intervention limited the court to due-process review only.
The trial court granted summary judgment, and after a bench trial on due process, affirmed dismissal, with appellants challenging the jury-trial right and the application of judicial non-intervention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the doctrine of judicial non-intervention applicable to limit review?	Non-intervention should not bar factual review on due process.	Non-intervention applies; internal CTCA decisions are insulated from court review.	Yes, doctrine applied to limit review to due-process inquiry.
Did appellants have a right to a jury trial on due-process issues?	Jury needed on key due-process factual questions.	Due-process issues are questions of law on undisputed facts.	No; due-process issue decided as a matter of law.
Was there minimal due process in canceling shares?	Process violated notice/hearing requirements.	Notice and hearing under CTCA bylaws were provided.	Appellants received minimal due process; cancellation upheld.
Should claims against individual Board members have been reviewed as personal liability?	Board members acted against CTCA interests for personal gain.	Board actions were corporate acts; no personal liability shown.	No personal liability; non-intervention applied to individual-board actions.

Hatley v. Am. Quarter Horse Ass'n, 552 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1977) (due process required in internal association matters when essential rights exist)
Sweatt v. Masonic Grand Chapter of Order of Eastern Star, 329 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. Civ. App. — Fort Worth 1959) (intervention when public policy or rights at stake)
Price v. Dallas Cty. Med. Soc’y & State Med. Ass’n, 108 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Civ. App. — Dallas 1937) (exception to non-intervention for due-process concerns)
Harden v. Colonial Country Club, 634 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1982) (non-intervention doctrine recognized in Texas practice)
Stevens v. Anatolian Shepherd Dog Club of Am., Inc., 231 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App. — Houston 14th Dist. 2007) (discusses standard and policy considerations in non-intervention)
Granek v. Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 172 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. App. — Austin 2005) (due-process inquiry in administrative-review context)