in the Estate of Johnnie Mae King

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 21, 2015·No. 04-15-00271-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 04-15-00271-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/21/2015 3:42:42 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK

No. 04-15-00271-CV ______________________________________________ FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/21/2015 3:42:42 PM ______________________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk

ROWLAND J. MARTIN, Appellant

v.

BEXAR APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD AND BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT Appellees.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC RECORDS

ELIZABETH CONRY DAVIDSON Attorney at Law State Bar No. 00793586 926 Chulie Drive San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone No.: (210) 380-4899 Facsimile No.: (210) 568-4036

EVERTSON & SANCHEZ, P.C. Karen Evertson State Bar No. 00797745 8213-A Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 109 Austin, Texas 78757 Telephone No.: (512) 323-0797 Facsimile No.: (512) 532-6598

Attorney for Appellees TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT:

Appellees, Bexar Appraisal District and Bexar Appraisal

Review Board respectfully present this, their Request for Judicial

Notice of Public Records, and in support thereof would show the

Court as follows:

This appeal as presented by Mr. Martin references facts and

occurrences that are not found in the record on appeal. Also,

responding to some of Mr. Martin’s contentions is impossible because

of the inadequacy of the record below in the probate court. Thus, it is

impossible to supplement the record on appeal from the record in the

probate court. Fortunately, there are numerous public documents

available from court records and government entities’ websites that

help fill in the factual details highly relevant to this case.

An appellate court can take notice of facts not noticed by a trial

court. Harper v. Killion, 162 Tex. 481, 348 S.W.2d 521 (1961). There is

no requirement that in order for judicial notice of domestic

judgments to be taken, a party must offer the document sought to be

noticed pursuant to the rules of evidence. Fender v. St. Louis

Southwestern Railway Co., 513 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 913, 95 S.Ct. 1569, 43

L.Ed.2d 778. As a result, Appellees are presenting with their brief

and motions in this case appendices containing some public

documents that they seek judicial notice of by this Court. These

documents, which are attached to this motion, include:

• State Bar of Texas, State Bar of Pennsylvania and State Bar of New York website search results; • Notice of Hearing Distressed Property – Potential Demolition dated February 7, 2006 (City of San Antonio); • Notice of Hearing Distressed Property – Potential Demolition dated March 5, 1999 (City of San Antonio); • Application for Homestead Exemption (Bexar County Appraisal District) • Web search results for 951 Lombrano showing homestead exemption applied to property (Bexar Appraisal District); • Notices from Bexar Appraisal District regarding the properties at issue; • Records of the Bexar County Tax Assessor Collector regarding payment of taxes on the properties at issue; • Search results from www.pacer.gov; • Search results from the Bexar County and District Clerks; • Search results from TAMES.

Every one of the above-referenced documents involves matters

of public record. As such, they are capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot be

reasonably questioned. Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 201(b). Courts may take

-3 - judicial notice, whether requested by a party or on their own, at any

stage of the proceedings. Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 201(c), (f).

Texas Rule of Evidence 201 sets forth the procedure for the

court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Tex.R. Evid. 201.

Section (b) describes the kinds of facts that may be judicially noticed:

“A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable

dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial

jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably

be questioned.” Tex.R. Evid. 201(b). In order to be judicially noticed,

a fact must be a matter of common knowledge, verifiable without the

necessity of an assessment of the truth and veracity of an interested

witness in a particular case. First National Bank of Amarillo v. Jarnigan,

794 S.W.2d 54, 61 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1990, writ denied). Once

judicially noticed, the undisputed fact becomes a matter of law.

Kennedy v. General Geophysical Co., 213 S.W.2d 707, 710

(Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

One category of documents Appellees request this court to take

judicial notice of includes the records of this Court and other courts

-4 - involving Mr. Martin and the events underlying this case. Public

records in their original form, such as courts' files, are self-

authenticated. Sparkman v. Kimmey, 970 S.W.2d 654, 659 (Tex. App.

1998); see Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 901(b)(7). It is well-recognized that a trial

court may generally take judicial notice of its own records in a case

involving the same subject matter between the same or practically the

same parties. Gardner v. Martin, 162 Tex. 156, 345 S.W.2d 274, 276

(Tex.1961); Briones v. Solomon, 769 S.W.2d 312, 319 (Tex.App.-San

Antonio 1989, writ denied); Escamilla v. Estate of Escamilla, 921 S.W.2d

723, 726 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied); McCurry v.

Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 742 S.W.2d 863, 867 (Tex.App.—Corpus

Christi 1987, writ denied).

An appellate court may also take judicial notice of its own

records in the same or related proceedings involving same or nearly

same parties, Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218, 223 (Tex. Crim. App.

1987);Huffman v. State, 479 S.W.2d 62, 68 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte

Flores, 537 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Specifically, an appellate

court may judicially notice an adjudicative fact not subject to

reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the

-5 - territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and

ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned. Tex.R. Evid. 201(b). The facts described by

Rule 201(b)(1) are known as “notorious facts” and the facts described

by Rule 201(b)(2) are known as “verifiably certain facts.” Tranter v.

Duemling, 129 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, no pet.),

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in the Estate of Johnnie Mae King, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in the Estate of Johnnie Mae King (in the Estate of Johnnie Mae King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tranter v. Duemling
129 S.W.3d 257 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Sparkman v. Kimmey
970 S.W.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
McCurry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
742 S.W.2d 863 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Langdale v. Villamil
813 S.W.2d 187 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Briones v. Solomon
769 S.W.2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Gardner v. Martin
345 S.W.2d 274 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Escamilla v. Estate of Escamilla Ex Rel. Escamilla
921 S.W.2d 723 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
O. B. Harper D-B-A Harper Electric Co. v. Killion
348 S.W.2d 521 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Huffman v. State
479 S.W.2d 62 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Ex Parte Flores
537 S.W.2d 458 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Maddox v. State
591 S.W.2d 898 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Hunnicutt v. State
531 S.W.2d 618 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
First National Bank of Amarillo v. Jarnigan
794 S.W.2d 54 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Turner v. State
733 S.W.2d 218 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Fender v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
513 S.W.2d 131 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Ted Lazarides, in His Official Capacity v. Grady Farris
367 S.W.3d 788 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)
the City of El Paso v. John Fox
458 S.W.3d 66 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Devereaux v. Daube
185 S.W.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Kennedy v. General Geophysical Co.
213 S.W.2d 707 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
In re Pierini
21 A.D.3d 42 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)