Th is su it wa s or ig ina lly br ou g ht a g a ins t L isa B ir kma n, Gr e g B oatr ig ht, S. Th oma s Mc Da nie l, 1 Fr ankie L immer, and John Doerfler
. Other than L isa Birkma n, the succ essors-in-of

fice have be en substitut ed. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 7. 2( a ) ( a

uto matic su

bs tit uti on of pu bli c of fi c e r wh e n off

ic e r i s p art

y in official c apac ity). The languag e in the Te x as Constitut ion e stablishing the “County Commi ssioners Court” does 2 not use an apostrophe in “Commi ssioners.” SeeTex. Cons t. art. V, § 18; 35 David B. B rooks, Texas Practice: County and Special District Law § 5.2 & n.1 ( 2d ed. 2002). We will use the spelling as it appear s in the Texas Const itution. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 412 -CV

Co nst abl e G ar y G r iffin, W ill iam so n Co unt y P r e c inc t 1 , A ppe lla nt
v . Lisa B irkm an, Coun ty Com m ission er P rec inct 1; Cynthia Long, Cou nty Com m ission er P r e c inc t 2 ; V ale r ie Co ve y, Co unt y C om m iss ion e r P r e c inc t 3 ; R on M or r iso n, County Com m ission er P rec inct 4; and Dan A. Gatt is, Coun ty Judge , Appellees 1

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 05- 1039 -C36 8 , HO NORAB LE JAMES F. CLAWSO N JR. , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N
Con sta ble Ga ry Gr if fi n a pp e a ls f ro m t he tria l c ourt ’s jud g me nt a g a ins t hi m in his
su it for d e c larator

y jud g me nt a sk ingtha

t th e c ourt

fi nd tha t a pp e lle e s ( c oll e c tiv e ly

“ the County Commi ssioners Cou rt ” ) l ac ked author ity to transfe r fundingfor the Williamson Count y Mental 2 Hea lth Unit from his office to that of the W illiamson County Sheriff. We will affirm the tria l court’s jud g me nt.Ordinar ily , a Willi amson Coun t y co n s t ab l e would only have two de puty

constables a

nd an 3 administrative staff

member. 2 F ac tu al a nd P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound Wil liamson County has a “Menta l H ealth Unit,” a team of la w enf orce ment office rs who have specia liz ed tra ining in re sponding to menta l health emer g encie s. This unit had been unde r the dir e c tio n o f t

he c on sta ble fo r P re c inc t One fo r ei g ht y e ars . In O c tob e r 2 00 5, ho we ve r, the County Commi ssioners Court formed a committee t o study the i ssue of the best place ment for the Me ntal He a lthUn it. F or

the bu dg e t y e ar 20 05 -0 6, the un it r e ma ine d in Pr e c inc t O ne , w ithfu

nd ingfo r s ix
me nta l health deputi e s and tw o me nta l he a lthsu

pe rv iso rs . G ri ff

in a nd fo ur de puty c on sta ble positions were a lso funded. 3

The c urre nt liti g ation was pre cipitated by events that occur red on O ctober

19, 2005. Gr if fi n or de re d a ll Pr e c inc t On e de putie s to sto p re sp on din g to m e nta l he a lthc a lls . H is c hie f d e pu ty contac ted the Willi amson County 911 dispatcher and all local law e nforc ement off icials and notified them that Gr i ffin’s office w ould no longe r re spond to mental health eme rg encie s or transpor t the mental l y ill and mentally disabled. The County

Commi ssioners Court convene d an eme rg ency meeting on October 20, 2005, and dec ided to transfe r fundingfor the Me ntal Hea lth Unit from the Preci n c t O n e Co n s ta

b le ’ s b u d g e t t o th e Sh e r if f ’ s o f f ic e . T h e Sh e r if

f h a d a u th o r iz e d , b u t u

n f il led, positions available that he of fer ed to the mental he alth deputies. The f unding a nd ancillar

y
re s o u r c e s , s u c ha s c ar s , f o r th e s e p o s it io n s w e r e tr an s f e r r e d f r o m t h e Pr e c in c t O n e Co n s ta

ble’s bu dg e t to the She ri ff

’s bu dg e t.3 Griff in filed suit for dec laratory judgme nt w ith a ncillary injunctive relief

reque sted. The tempora

ry injunction was denied. The County Commi ssioners Cou rt m o ved for both a traditional and a

no-evide nce summar

y judgme nt; t h e t ri al court gr anted a g ener al summary jud g me nt. I n four issues on a ppeal, Gr iffin contends that the trial court e rre d in gr anting
summa ry jud g me nt be c a

us e : (1 ) onc e the County Com mis sio ne rs Court a do pts the annua l bu dg e t, the Commiss ioners lac k authority to amend that budg et for the purposes o f i nterfe ring with or counter manding the dec ision of a constable as t o how to deploy his deputies during that fiscal y ear ; (2 ) l oc a l g ov e rnme nt c od e se c tio n 1 11 .1 04 (b ) c ou ld n ot s e rv e a s a ut h o r i t y fo r t he Willi a mso n Co un ty Com mis sio ne rs Court

to c ut C on sta

ble Gr if fi n’ s o ri g inal ann ua l bu dg e t be c a us e that se c tio n o nly g ives authority

to a Commiss ioners Court to m ak e an e merg ency “expenditure” that incre ases the
c ounty ’s or ig ina l bu dg e t; ( 3) e ve n if se c tio n 1 11 .0 41 (b ) c ou ld be r ead to auth or ize a bu dg e t c ut,
summa ry jud g me nt w a s in a

pp ro pr iate g ive n th e g enu ine f a c t is su e of

wh e the r a

“ g ra ve pu bli c
nece ssity ” existed when Constable Grif fin temporarily

deploy ed his deputies to serve criminal
wa rr ants and

c ivi l pa pe rs wh ile de c idi ngon

a c a se- by -c a se ba sis wh e the r t o ta ke me nta l he a lth
c a lls or le t th e She ri ff

’s of fi c e ha nd le the m, a

nd no a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e wa s in tr od uc e d th a t a

sin g le mental hea lth call went unansw ere d or that such c alls would g o unanswe re d i n t h e future ; and (4) loca l gove rnment code section 111.041(c) does not g ive the Willi amson County Commi ssioners Court authority

to “transf

er” budg eted amounts to budget items that wer e cre ated by the “tra nsfer ” order that did not ex ist in t he orig inal annual budge t. We will hold that the Count y Commi ssioners Court had the author ity

to m ake the budg et transf er, ove rrulingissue four, a nd hold that theBe cause of our dispositi on of the case , it is not ne cessa ry to disc uss issues t wo an d t hree 4 conce rning the exist ence of an e merg ency . SeeTex. R. App. P . 47. 1 (o p i n i o n to be as brie f as prac ticable, but addr ess eve ry issue raised a

nd nece ssary to final dispositi on of appe al). 4 transfe r did not improperly interfe re w ith Griffin’s “ sphere of authority , ” o v er ru l ing issue one
. 4 Be fore rea ching the merits of the c ase, w e will discuss the County Commi ssioners Court’s motion to d ism iss the a

pp e a l.
Discussion Mo otn ess Th e County Com mis si o n e r s C o u

r t m o v e d t o d i s m i s s t

h i s a pp e a l f or moo tne ss b e c a

us e Griff in’s complaint is about a budg et transf er that occur

red in fisc al y ear

2006 and the county is now operating unde r a ne w budg et for f iscal y ear 2007. The mootness doctrine limit s courts to dec iding
case s in which an a ctual contr oversy exis ts. Camarena v. Texas Employme nt Comm’n , 754 S.W .2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988). A ca se becomes m oot if a contr oversy cea ses to exis t betwee n the par ties at any stag e of the leg al proceeding s, including the appea l. In re Kellogg Brown & Root , 166 S.W .3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005). A di s p u t e o v er at t o rney s’ fe es is a live contr oversy . McElroy v. City of Te mp le , 208 S.W .3d 471, 474 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied) ( citin g A l l s tate Ins. Co. v. Hallman , 159 S.W .3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005) ). Griff in sue d for a decla

ratory judgme nt, injunctive
re lie f, and

a tto rney s’ fe e s. Al tho ug h th e fi sc a l y e ar a t is su e ha s e nd e d, a

de c isi on that th e County Com mis sio ne rs Court a c te d impr op e rl y , thus re ve rs ingthe tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt, wo uld ne c e ssi tate
a r e m an d t o t h e t r i a l c o u rtt o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r anaw ar d

o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s t o G r i f

f i nw o u ld be appr opriate. SeeTex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.009 (West 1997). Theref o re, w e5

overr ule the County Commi ssioners Court’s motion to di smiss and consider the me rits of Griff in’s
c la ims on a pp e a l.
Stan dard of Revie w

This Court revie ws the g ranting of a motion for summary judgme nt under a de novo standard of

revie w. Se e Va le nc e Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). Under this standard, t he C ourt exercises its own judg ment and re deter mines eac h issue of fa ct and law
. See Qu ic k v . Ci ty of A us tin , 7 S.W .3d 109, 116 (Tex. 1998). No defere nce is g iven to the orig inal tribunal’s decision. Id. I f a trial court’s order does not specif

y the g round or g rounds re lied on for its ru lin g , th e n s umm ary

jud g me nt w ill be a ff

ir me d o n a pp e a l if any the or

y a dv anc e d is me ri tor iou s. Se e Do w Ch e m. Co. v . F

ra nc is , 46 S.W .3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001). The appellate c ourt may revie w
and a ff ir m on any g ro un d th e mov ant p re se nte d to the c ourt in i ts mot io n for su mm ary jud g me nt,
re g ard le ss wh e the r the tr ia l c ourt ide nti fi e d the g ro un d re lie d on to g ra nt the summ ary

judg me nt. Cincinnati L ife Ins. Co. v. Cates , 9 27 S.W. 2d 62 3, 62 5 ( Te x. 19 96 ). App ell ant s mo ved fo r b oth
a no -e vid e nc e and

a tr a dit ion a l summa

ry jud g me nt o n th e g ro un d th a t a s a matte r o f l aw, the County Com mis sio ne rs Court did no t viol a te Te xas law b y mov ingthe re sp on sib ili ty fo r t he Me nta l H e a lth U n it to th e Sh e r if

f ’ s O f f ic e. See Y

ou ng Re f. C or p. v . P e nn zo il , 46 S.W .3d 380, 385-86 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)
.

The budg et transf

er or der ma de by the County Commi ssioners Court is re viewed f or an abuse of discre tion. See Commissioners Cour t of Ti tus County v. Agan , 940 S.W .2d 77, 79-80 (T ex . 1 9 9 7 ) ( ci t i n g Ector County v. Stringer , 8 43 S.W. 2d 47 7, 47 9 (T e x. 19 92 )) . O nc e the County Com mis sio ne rs Court e xer c ise s its disc re tio n, the dis tr ic t court may re vie w the or de r o nly

fo r a bu se6

o f d i s c r e t i o n , an d

i s l i m i t e d

t o a r e v i e w o f

w h e t h e r t h e C o u rt , b y i t s o r d e r , a c t e d i l l e g a l l y,
unrea sonably , or ar

bitrarily
. See A gan , 940 S.W .2d at 980. In rev i ew i ng a Commissi oners Court order for a buse of discr etion, the cour t has no rig ht to substitut e it s judgme nt and discre tion for that of the Commissioners Court. Id
. Coun ty Commissio ne rs C

ourt Th e Tex a s Co ns tit

uti on pr ov ide s th a t th e County Com mis sio ne rs Court

“ sh a ll exercise suc h power s and jurisdiction over a ll county business, as is confe rre d by this Cons tituti on and the law s o f t h e S t at e, o r as may be her eaf ter pre scribed.” Tex. Cons t. art. V, § 18. Thus, the T e x a s C o n s t i tu t i o ne s t a

b l i s h e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s C o u rta s t h e c o u n t y’ s p r i n c i p a l g o v e r n i n g b o dy. Agan , 9 4 0 S.W .2d at 79. The pow ers a nd duties of the Commissi oners Court include a spects of leg islative, executive, administrative, and judicia l functions. Id. (c i t i n g Av e ry v . Mi dla nd Cou nty , 39 0 U .S. 47 4, 48 2 ( 19 68 ); Ector County v. Stringer , 843 S.W .2d 47 7 , 4 7 8 (Tex . 1992)). In the exercise of

its powers and jurisdiction over county business, the County

Commi ssioners Court has implied authority

to exercise br oad discre tion to accomplish the purposes intende d. See Canales

v . La ug hli n , 2 14 S.W. 2d

45 1, 45 3 ( Te x. 19 48 ); Cos by v . Co un ty

Com m’rs o

f R an da ll Co un ty , 712 S.W .2d 246, 248 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1986, writ re f’d n.r .e.). C onstitut ional and statutory pro vi sio ns c on fe rr inga

uth or ity up on the Com mis sio ne rs Cou rt sh ou ld b e br oa dly

and lib e ra lly construed to asce rtain the scope of the a uthority g rante d either e x pressly

or by nece ssary implication. Canales , 2 14 S.W. 2d

a t 45 3; Cosby , 712 S.W .2d at 248. Th e County

Com mis sio ne rs Court

ha s e xten siv e a

uth or ity ov e r t

he c ounty ’s bu dg e t, inc lud ing the po we r to de te rm ine the numbe r a nd c omp e ns a tio n o f e mpl oy e e s, de putie s, a ssi sta nts ,7

and cle rks to be g iven to a par ticu l ar d epar

tment. See A bbott v. Pollack, 946 S.W .2d 513, 517 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, writ d en i ed ). The County Commi ssioners Court has the statutory
a uth or ity to a me nd the bu dg e t by : a

uth or izin g e me rg e nc y e xpe nd iture s in the c a se of a g ra ve pu bli c
nece ssity ; transfe rringan amount budg eted f or one item to another budg eted item; and c hang ing the budg et for c ounty

purposes. Te x . L oc. Gov’ t Code Ann. §§ 111.041, 111.0415 (West 2006). The County

Commi ssioners Court, howeve r, does not have unlimited powers over county g overnme nt. Eac h elec ted county officia l has a deleg ated sphere of authority that cannot be invaded. See Pritchard & Abbott v. McKe nna , 350 S.W .2d 333, 335 (Tex. 1961). This sphere of
a uth or ity c ov e rs on ly

tho se duties that th e Te xas C on sti tut ion and sta tut e s sp e c if

ic a lly de le g a te to the offic er. Id . The prote cted “sphere of authority” does not prote ct discre tionary duties that are outside the “c ore duties” of the e lected of ficial. Agan , 940 S.W .2d at 79. The Te x as Constitut ion cr ea t es the constable ’s offic e. Ar t. V, § 18. The g ener al power s and duties of a

constable a

re spe cified in the loc al g overnme nt code: (a) A constable shall ex ec u t e and re turn as provide d by law ea ch pr oc e ss, wa

rr ant, and pr e c e pt t hat is dir e c te d to the c on sta ble and is delivere d by

a lawf ul office r. Notice s re q u i re d by Section 24.005, Property C ode, re lating to e viction actions are proce ss for purpose s of this section that may

be executed by

a consta ble. [(b ), (c ), (d ); g e og ra

ph ic a uth or izatio ns and

re str a int s] (e ) T he c on sta

ble sh a ll atte nd

e a c h ju sti c e c ourt

he ld i n th e pr e c inc t.We n ote that, i n h is b ri e f, Gr if fi n r e fe rs to h and lin g me nta l he a lth cal ls “in add itionto t he ir 5
‘ c o r e ’ C o n s t a

b l e d u t i e s s e r v i n g c r i m i n a l w ar

r ants , c i v i l p a

p e r s , an d p r o v i d i n g a

b a i l i f f t o t h e JP Court.” In other wor ds, Griffin a cknowledge s that handling mental hea lth calls was not a c ore function of the of

fice
. 8 Tex. L oc. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 86.021 (West 2006). The ope ration of a m en t al health unit i s not contained w ithin the lis t of “c ore duties” as set out by the leg islature. 5 The shift of duties a

nd funding from one county office to another in this case appe ars t o fall within the ambit of Agan . I n Agan , t h e C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s C o u rt o f T i tu s Co un ty transfe rre d pay

roll prepa ration re sponsibili ties from the Coun t y Trea surer

to the County

Auditor. 940 S.W .2d at 78. Fro m 1 9 8 7 u n til 1994 a pay roll clerk w orking for the T rea sury prepa red the county pay

roll. I n 1994, the Commi ssioners Court a mended the budg et to c ombine administrative duties involving c o u n t y

p ay ro l l , t h e i n s u ra n ce p ro gra m , p er s o n n el , an d re ce i v i n g p u rc h as e o rd er s and their pay ment into one full-time position assigned to the County Auditor. Id . at 79. These duties had previously

been divided be tween the pay roll clerk a

nd a par t-time employ ee in the Auditor’s offic e, who had r ece ntly

resig ned. Id
. Th e Tr e a sury e mpl oy e e tr ans fe rr e d to the Au dit or ’s of fi c e to f ill thi s position. Id . After

enumer ating various cor e func tions of the Trea surer ’s offic e, the c ourt noted that pay roll prepa ration re sponsibili ties had not been a ssigne d to any county officia l in particular a

nd thus were not a co re fu n ct ion of the Tre asure r. Id. at 81-82. The ref ore, a cting in its l eg islative
c a pa c ity , th e Com mis sio ne rs Court wa s a ble to d e le g a te the re sp on sib ili tie s to an a pp ro pr iate c ounty officia l and had the pow er to tra nsfer the pay roll duties to the Auditor. Id . The c ourt then noted that th e Tr e a sure r wa s g ive n the e xclu siv e po we r to dis burs e fu nd s, and the Com mis sio ne rs c ou ld not tr ansfe r functions involving fund disburse ment to the auditor. Id
. The court conclude d: “I f the9

L eg is l at u re d o es not specifica lly assig n a duty

to the County

Trea surer , that duty

is not one of t h e c o u n t y

T re as u re r’ s co re fu n ct i o n s . T h e C o m m i s s i o n er s C o u rt m ay , wi t h i ni t s d i s cr et i o n , as s i gn tho se no n- c or e fu

nc tio ns to o the r c ount y off icials the le g isl a tur e a

uth or ize s to pe rf

or m th os e functions.” Id . at 82.

I n the cur rent c ase, the County

Commis s io n e r s Co u

r t t r a n s f e r r e d f u n d in g for a number of jobs from the constable to the s heriff
. These office rs were not perf orming a cor e func tion of the constable’ s office . Acc ording ly , under Agan, the County Commi ssioners Court had the discr etion t o as s i gnt h es e no n -c o re fu n ct i o n s t o an o t h er o ff i ci al au t h o ri z edt o p er fo rm t h o s e du t i es . Al t h o u gh Agan did not ex pressly

discuss the timing of the transf er in that c ase, be cause the opinion refe rre d to “ame nding” the budget, it appea rs comparable to the budget amendment at i ssue in this case a s
an e ve nt t hat occ ur re d af te r t he sta rt of the fi sc a l y e ar. We n ote that Agan did not address the budg et tr ans fe r a uth or ity un de r T e xas L oc a l G ov e rnm ent Co de sec tio n 1 11 .0 41 (c ). We n owdis c us s th is
se c tio n a s ano the r b a sis fo r t he County

Com mis sio ne rs Court ’s a uth or ity to t ra ns fe r t he se fu nd s.
Se c tio n 11 1. 04 1(

c ) T ra nsf e r Aut hority The Te x as L ocal Gove rnment Code g ives budg etar y t ransfer a

uthority to the Commi ssioners Court: “The Commissioners’ Court by order may amend the budg et to tr ansfe r an amount budg eted f

or one item to anothe r budg eted item without authorizing a n emer g ency expenditure.” Te x . L oc. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 111.041(c) (West 1999). I n this case, the Sher iff had open positions. He used those positions to offer employ ment to the mental hea lth deputies. The fu nd ing fo r the se de putie s wa s tr ans fe rr e d fr om the bu dg e t ite m fo r the Pr e c inc t On e Con sta ble to the Sheriff

. Such a tra

nsfer in the form of a

“re hire” of employ ees by o n e precinct fr om another10

prec inct, with the fu n d s orig inally budg eted f

or the fir st precinc t of employ ment following the employ ees to their ne w pre cinct, wa s approve d in an attorne y g ener al opinion. SeeOp. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. D M-158 at 5 (1992)
.

Gr if fi n a sse rt s th a t tr ans fe r m

us t be a lin e -i te m to lin e -i te m tr ans fe r; in o the r w or ds , be c a us e the She ri ff

did no t ha ve a lin e ite m f

or e a c h tr ans ferred pos iti on la be le d “ me nta l he a lth deputy ,” no tra

nsfer could occ ur. A previous version of the t ransf er authority under section 111.041 did contain a limitation that a “budg et surplus” could be tra nsfer red to a budg et item of “similar kind and fund” as long as the total budg et was not incr ease d. See Hooten v. Enriquez , 863 S.W .2d 522, 52 9- 30 (T e x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 19 93 , n o w ri t) (d e a lin g wi th p ro pr ie ty of me c ha nis m us e d to c re a te “surplus” to tra

nsfer money from County

Clerk to Record Offic e). H oweve r, the 75th leg islature
ame nd e d th is s e c tio n to the c ur re nt v e rs ion qu ote d a

bo ve , re mov ing the “ lik e kin d” and “ surp lus ” restric tions. SeeAct of June 1, 1997, 75th L eg ., R.S., ch. 119 7 , § 3 , 1 9 97 Tex. Gen. L aws 4612. We decline to re ad into the statute a ne w re striction not supported by its plain langua g e. F ur the r, the Willi amso n County bu dg e t do e s no t sh owind ivi du a l sa lari e s a s se pa rate line items; each depar

tment’s budg et simply

shows a total for sa laries, F I CA, and other c ateg ories of expenditures. For example, the Commi ssioner’s budg et for Pre cinct One simply shows an “obje ct code” of 001100 for

“sala ries” w ith a total of $139,815 allocated for sa laries. T h e P re ci nct Two bu dg e t, u nd e r t he sa me ob je c t c od e and

la be l, s ho ws a

tot a l of $1 45 ,2 85 a llo c a te d f

or sa lari e s. Simi larly , eac h of these two pr ecinc ts shows an “objec t code” of 002010 for “ FI CA” with totals of $10,920 and $11,115, re spectively , allocate d for this item. T he orde r authorizing the budg et transf er contains a c hart label ed , “Lin e I tem Transf ers f or Tra nsfer of Mental He alth Unit from Dept. 55111

[C onstable, Prec inct One] to Dept. 560 [Sheriff].” Under “L ine I tem” 1100, “Sala

ries,” it shows the Precinc t O ne curr ent budg et allocating a lump sum of $509,370.00, with a transfe r to the Sheriff of a lump sum $229,363.49. The transf er budg et t rac ks the format of t he county budg et with a lumpsum line item for FI CA, retire ment, and other cate g ories of expenses. Although the County Auditor maintains a budg et showing eac h salary as a separ ate line item for ac counting control purpose s, that is not the adopted budg et of W illiamson C ounty as appr oved by

the County

Commi ssioners Court that was subjec t to amendment. SeeTex. L oc. Gov’ t Ann. § 111.008 (West Supp. 2007) (adoption of budg et), 111.009 (a

pproved budg et filed with county cler k and posted on c ounty

website).
Conclusion We have c oncluded that the budg et transf er w as authorized by

the local g overnme nt code a nd did not improperly intrude into Constable Griff in’s sphere of authority . Acc ording ly , the Wi ll li ams o nCo u n ty

Co mm is s io n e r s Co u rt w a s e n ti tl e d to s u mm ar

y judg ment

in it s f a v o r . We
a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Nove mber 28, 2007