Shirley J. Neeley, Commissioner of Education v. Texas State Teachers Association and Maria Guadalupe Ramos

Court of Appeals of Texas

Shirley J. Neeley, Commissioner of Education v. Texas State Teachers Association and Maria Guadalupe Ramos

DecidedAugust 16, 2007

Docket13-06-00549-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Shirley J. Neeley, Commissioner of Education v. Texas State Teachers Association and Maria Guadalupe Ramos (Shirley J. Neeley, Commissioner of Education v. Texas State Teachers Association and Maria Guadalupe Ramos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shirley J. Neeley, Commissioner of Education v. Texas State Teachers Association and Maria Guadalupe Ramos, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-06-549-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

SHIRLEY J. NEELEY,

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Appellant,

v.

TEXAS STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

AND MARIA GUADALUPE RAMOS, Appellees.

On appeal from the 200th District Court

of Travis County, Texas.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides and Vela

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

I agree with the majority's holding that the Texas State Teachers' Association does not have standing to sue the Commissioner of Education, but I believe that this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether TSTA's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are ripe for review.

Standing is a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction, and subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court's power to decide a case. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. 2001); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553-54 (Tex. 2000). Standing focuses on the question of who may bring a lawsuit. Novak, 52 S.W.3d at 708; Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998). Ripeness, on the other hand, focuses on when a party may bring the lawsuit. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 851 (Tex. 2000).

Our supreme court has stated that an opinion issued in a case brought by a party without standing is advisory and that Texas courts have no jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993). In the case before us, the standing issue is dispositive; therefore, the majority should not have reached the ripeness issue. Courts are not authorized to render advisory opinions on issues not necessary to a disposition of an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cortez, 66 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 2001) (holding courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000) (same); Tex. Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444 (same). Accordingly, I concur.

ROSE VELA

Justice

Concurring Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 16th day of August, 2007.

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

NUMBER 13-06-549-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

SHIRLEY J. NEELEY,

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Appellant,

v.

TEXAS STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

AND MARIA GUADALUPE RAMOS, Appellees.

On appeal from the 200th District Court

of Travis County, Texas.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides and Vela

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

I agree with the majority's holding that the Texas State Teachers' Association does not have standing to sue the Commissioner of Education, but I believe that this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether TSTA's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are ripe for review.

Standing is a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction, and subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court's power to decide a case. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. 2001); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553-54 (Tex. 2000). Standing focuses on the question of who may bring a lawsuit. Novak, 52 S.W.3d at 708; Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998). Ripeness, on the other hand, focuses on when a party may bring the lawsuit. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 851 (Tex. 2000).

Our supreme court has stated that an opinion issued in a case brought by a party without standing is advisory and that Texas courts have no jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993). In the case before us, the standing issue is dispositive; therefore, the majority should not have reached the ripeness issue. Courts are not authorized to render advisory opinions on issues not necessary to a disposition of an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cortez, 66 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 2001) (holding courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000) (same); Tex. Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444 (same). Accordingly, I concur.

ROSE VELA

Justice

Concurring Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 16th day of August, 2007.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shirley J. Neeley, Commissioner of Education v. Texas State Teachers Association and Maria Guadalupe Ramos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-j-neeley-commissioner-of-education-v-texas-texapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack