Officer Robin Talley v. the City of Killeen
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14166
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Officer Robin Talley received written notice of indefinite suspension from the City of Killeen on Feb. 29, 2009, and the notice said an appeal must be filed "within 10 days."
- Talley submitted a written appeal on the afternoon of March 6, 2009 — the tenth calendar day after she received the notice — before 5:00 p.m.
- Killeen rejected the appeal as untimely, relying on its Civil Service Rule .053(B)(1), which defines "10 days" as "240 consecutive hours" (i.e., measured in hours from the time of receipt).
- Talley sued for a declaration that her appeal was timely under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 143.010(a); both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the court of appeals reviewed statutory construction de novo and the undisputed facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 143.010(a) requires appeals to be filed within ten calendar days (date-based) or within 240 consecutive hours (hour-based) from notice | Talley: "within 10 days" means ten calendar days after the date of the action; her appeal (filed on the 10th calendar day) was timely | City: municipal rule measuring ten days as 240 consecutive hours controls; Talley’s filing exceeded 240 hours and was untimely | Court: "10 days" means ten calendar days after the date of the action; the City’s 240-hour rule conflicts with the statute and is unenforceable; Talley’s appeal was timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard for reviewing competing summary-judgment motions and rendering the correct judgment)
- State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. 2006) (statutory-construction questions reviewed de novo)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (give effect to plain statutory language unless absurd)
- Marks v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 319 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. 2010) (statutes must be construed to give effect to all words used)
- In re Walkup, 122 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) ("day" commonly understood as a calendar day)
