Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919

Roccaforte sued Jefferson County and Constable Greenway for wrongful termination; he personally served County Judge Griffith.
County answered within 15 days; discovery proceeded and officials were deposed, and a jurisdictional plea was filed asserting lack of requisite notice under Local Government Code § 89.0041.
Roccaforte argued § 89.0041 is inapplicable to post-suit notice or is superseded by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that substantial compliance was possible.
Trial court did not sever County claims from the main case; judgment on some claims followed, but a final judgment later issued during a statutory stay.
Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether post-suit notice is jurisdictional and whether noncompliance warranted dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-suit notice under § 89.0041 is jurisdictional	Roccaforte argues notice is not jurisdictional; substantial compliance may suffice.	County argues notice is jurisdictional and strict compliance required.	Not jurisdictional; noncompliance can be waived.
Effect of timely actual notice when notice was not mailed	Actual notice and substantial compliance should suffice to avoid dismissal.	Statute requires certified/registered mail; actual notice is insufficient.	Nonjurisdictional; dismissal not required if timely notice was provided.
Whether the final judgment rendered during a stay mooted the interlocutory appeal	Final judgment should not moot the appeal since County claims remained pending on appeal.	Final judgment during stay can moot interlocutory appeals.	Addressed via Rule 27.3 treatment; proceeding treated as appeal from final judgment.
Whether County waived its objection by delaying assertion of noncompliance	County’s late challenge should not bar Roccaforte’s suit due to waiver of noncompliance.	County timely asserted issues; noncompliance should lead to dismissal.	County waived by delaying assertion; notice adequate for purposes of § 89.0041; case should not be dismissed.

Loutzenhiser v. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr., 140 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2004) (non-jurisdictional notice requirements may be waived)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (void judgments and jurisdictional limits explained)
City of DeSoto v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2009) (construction of statutory provisions and jurisdictional questions)
Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (waiver concepts in procedural rules and arbitration-like contexts)
Artco-Bell Corp. v. City of Temple, 616 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. 1981) (notice requirements and waiver/exception principles)
Cox Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986) (specificity of notice; substantial compliance considerations)