Texas Department of Public Safety v. Albert Talamantez--Appeal from County Court of San Saba County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 1996 » Texas Department of Public Safety v. Albert Talamantez--Appeal from County Court of San Saba County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-95-00697-CV

Case Date: 06/12/1996

Plaintiff: Richard Watson

Defendant: Board of Regents, Texas A & M University--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

Preview:Richard Watson v. Board of Regents, Texas A & M University--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County
Watson v. Bd of Regents, A&M /**/ IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-259-CV

RICHARD WATSON, Appellant v.

BOARD OF REGENTS, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, Appellee

From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court # 38,487-85

OPINION

Richard Watson sued the Board of Regents of Texas A&M University seeking a declaratory judgment that the decision of the Board to change the name of Texas A&I University to "Texas A&M University Kingsville" was unconstitutional and void. His primary complaint is that he is a graduate of Texas A&I "who will be forced to become an Aggie" if the Board's action stands. Watson asserted that his suit arose "under the Texas Bill of Rights" of the Constitution, particularly sections two, thirteen, and sixteen of article one. 1See Tex. Const. art. I, 2, 13, 16. In a supplemental petition, he further alleged that the Board may have violated the Open Meetings Act when it made the decision. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 551.001-551.146 (Vernon 1994).

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1444.html[8/20/2013 7:04:39 PM]

After some preliminary legal skirmishes, the Board filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 23, 1994, the court notified the parties that it would rule on the Board's motion on or after April 15 and directed that any party wishing to file written arguments supporting or opposing the motion should do so before that date. Watson filed a response on April 7, which raised only the issues of (a) notice and service of the motion for summary judgment and (b) failure to hold a hearing at a specific time. On May 16, the court granted the Board's motion. On appeal, Watson does not attack the merits of the summary judgment. He asserts only that the court erred in denying an oral hearing on the motion after he requested one. Contending that the case is one of first impression, he nevertheless concedes that several courts have held that an oral hearing is not necessary, but urges that the summary judgment procedure "should be carefully regulated, as in effect it denies a litigant his anticipatory day in court." The Board cites several cases holding that, because only questions of law are presented in the summary judgment context, oral hearings are not necessary. See Owen Electric Supply, Inc. v. Brite Day Const. Inc., 821 S.W.2d 283, 288 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied); Martin v. Cohen, 804 S.W.2d 201, 202-03 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) ("Nothing in the rule requires an oral hearing and, if one is held, no oral testimony is allowed at the hearing.") Following these decisions, we hold that the court did not err in considering the Board's motion for summary judgment without a hearing. Watson's point of error is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

BILL VANCE Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas, Justice Cummings, and Justice Vance Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed February 8, 1995 Do not publish

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1444.html[8/20/2013 7:04:39 PM]

Download 1444.pdf