Texas a & M University-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289

Melody Yarbrough, an associate professor at TAMUK, challenged a department chair's narrative of her performance evaluation after she believed the wording contradicted an 'exceptional' numerical score.
TAMUK initially indicated formal grievance procedures but ultimately quashed the grievance, citing that the handbook/regulations do not address complaints about negative performance reviews.
Yarbrough sought a declaratory judgment that TAMUK's grievance procedures violated Gov't Code § 617.005 by not providing a minimally adequate opportunity to present a grievance.
TAMUK granted tenure to Yarbrough; TAMUK argued the grievance claim was moot once tenure was awarded and policy remained unchanged.
The court held there was no live controversy because there was no evidence that TAMUK's policy would preclude future grievances or that Yarbrough would face further adverse evaluations that she could grieve; the dissent would have reached the merits, arguing ongoing stigma and policy implications.
The majority reversed and dismissed the case for want of a live controversy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the grievance-procedure challenge survives mootness after tenure	Yarbrough contends the policy remains violative and could affect future grievances	TAMUK argues the dispute is moot since tenure was granted and policy unchanged	Moot; case dismissed.
Whether the capable-of-repetition exception applies	There may be continued impact of the narrative on future decisions	No demonstrated repetition or likelihood of future identical harm	Not applicable; mootness governs.
Whether collateral consequences keep a live controversy	Ongoing taint in personnel file could affect future outcomes	Collateral consequences are speculative and insufficient to sustain a declaratory judgment	Not enough to overcome mootness.
Whether immunity-based dismissal would be preferable	Dispute involves authority and powers over grievance systems, implicating immunity	Question framed as mootness; immunity not reached	Not reaching merits; mootness controls.

Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex.2001) (capable-of-repetition exception requires short duration and likely recurrence)
Gen. Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1990) (capable-of-repetition doctrine; unlikely to evade review otherwise)
Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270 (U.S. 1941) (collateral consequences insufficient to sustain declaratory relief without live controversy)
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (continued adverse effects required for live controversy)
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1982) (live controversy requires ongoing cognizable interest)