Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of September 21, 2009

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

York v. State,   No. 02-08-00118-CV    (Sept. 24, 2009)   (op. on reh’g) (Livingston, J., joined by Walker, J.; Cayce, C.J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:    The trial court properly dismissed York’s declaratory judgment claims for want of jurisdiction because even though a state court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the bankruptcy code’s automatic stay applies to an action, in this collateral attack on an allegedly void judgment, there was no evidence on the face of the record showing that the stay applied. However, because York alleged facts supporting a Texas constitutional takings claim, the trial court erred by dismissing that cause of action for want of jurisdiction.

Dissent:    An essential element of a constitutional takings case is that the plaintiff owned the property. The justice of the peace determined that York did not own the property at issue. Because York did not directly appeal this decision to the trial court, it became final with respect to any state-court challenge. York’s takings claim constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on a final judgment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing that cause for want of jurisdiction.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «