601 S.W.3d 785
Tex.2020Background
- Parents of Texas public-school students sued Mike Morath (Commissioner of TEA) alleging TEA unlawfully administered the 2015–2016 STAAR exams and sought relief via ultra vires claims.
- The trial court denied Morath’s plea to the jurisdiction; the Third Court of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had pleaded viable ultra vires claims under City of El Paso v. Heinrich.
- Morath petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review; while the petition was pending and after merits briefing, respondents filed a Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice in the Supreme Court and moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.
- Morath opposed, arguing the nonsuit was procedurally ineffective during an interlocutory appeal and that the case should proceed due to public importance; he also asked the Court to vacate the court of appeals’ opinion if dismissal were granted.
- The Supreme Court held the nonsuit filed in this Court was effective to moot the case, dismissed the petition for review, and—given the unilateral mootness and public stakes—vacated both the court of appeals’ judgment and its opinion without addressing the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness of nonsuit filed in this Court during interlocutory appeal | Nonsuit (Rule 162) filed in this Court is effective to end the case | Rule 162 applies only in trial courts; no appellate mechanism to nonsuit now | Court: Nonsuit filed in this Court is effective; case is moot and must be dismissed |
| Whether public importance prevents dismissal after nonsuit | N/A (respondents sought dismissal) | State: public-interest issues should keep case live despite nonsuit | Court: Mootness cannot be avoided for public-interest reasons; dismissed despite public importance |
| Whether statutory stay bars filing a nonsuit in trial court during interlocutory appeal | N/A | State: automatic stay of trial proceedings prevents Rule 162 nonsuit in trial court | Court: decline to decide necessity of filing in trial court because nonsuit in this Court is effective; jurisdictional limits mean mootness controls |
| Vacatur of court of appeals opinion in addition to judgment | Respondents did not oppose vacatur request explicitly | State: because mootness resulted from unilateral action by prevailing party, the court of appeals opinion should be vacated to prevent unreviewable precedent | Court: Granted vacatur of both the court of appeals judgment and opinion to remove binding precedential effect, while leaving opinion available as persuasive authority |
Key Cases Cited
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (standard for pleading ultra vires claims)
- BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. 1990) (plaintiff has an absolute right to nonsuit absent defendant's affirmative relief claim)
- Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2007) (accepted nonsuit filed in this Court during interlocutory appeal)
- Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2006) (nonsuit extinguishes case or controversy)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur clears unreviewable judgments to allow relitigation)
- United States Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (courts should scrutinize vacatur to prevent manipulation of precedent)
- Houston Cable TV, Inc. v. Inwood W. Civic Ass'n, 860 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. 1993) (vacate judgment but ordinarily not the court of appeals opinion absent equitable reasons)
- City of Pasadena v. State ex rel. City of Houston, 442 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. 1969) (limited precedential discussion on public-importance exception to mootness)