### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00514

- CV

The State of Texas, Appellant

v. Elgin Independent School District; Board of Trustees of Elgin Independent School District; Dr. Jodi Duron in her Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Elgin Independent School

District; and Byron Mitchell, Beth Walterscheidt, Angie Edmon, Juanita Valarie Neidig,

Pete Bega, JD Harkins, and David Glass in their Official Capacities as Trustees of the Elgin Independent School District , Appellee s

FR OM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY NO. 1905-21, THE HONORABLE CARSON TALMADGE CAMPBELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In October 2021, t he State of Texas filed a notice of appeal from the trial court ’ s order granting ap pellees ’ motio n to show authority and dismissing the underlyi ng case in its entirety. The State sued appellees to challenge the Elgin Independen t School District ’s mask
mandate for students, parents, and visitors on the School District ’s property.
O n J a nuary 25, 2023, the Clerk of this Court re quested a response from the State explaining how this Court ma y exer cise jurisdiction over this matter because it appear ed that the
State ’ s suit against a ppellees was moot

. “The mootness doctrine applies to c ases in which a justiciable controversy exists between the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of subsequent events.” Matthews v. Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist. ,2 484 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016). “ It prevents courts from ren dering advisory opinions, which

are outside the jurisdiction conferred by Texas Constitution article II, section 1. ” Id. (citing Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez , 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam) )

. In its response , the State re present s th at the appeal and the underlying case are
moot beca use the School Distr ict ’ s mask mandate has been rescinded

. The S tate cites minutes
from the School District ’ s bo ard meeting on February 28, 2022. Because the minutes impa ct this
Co urt ’ s ju risdict ion, we t ake judicial notice of them

. See Tex. R. Evid . 201 (addressing

court ’ s authority to judicial ly notice adj udicative facts) ; Meeker v. Tarrant C nty

. Coll

. Dist. , 317 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2010, pet. denied) ( discussing moot ness doctri ne

a nd explainin g that “ [b]ecause mootness is a matter that ordinarily arises after the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from, we can only determine whether Meeker ’ s appeal is moot by considering evidence of matters occurring subsequent to the t rial co urt ’ s summary judgment
order ” ) ; SEI Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Bank One Tex., N.A. , 803 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, no writ) ( expl aining that appellate courts may take judicial notice of facts outside record to determine jurisdiction over appeal ).
Be cause the School District has rescin d ed the mask mandate, there is no longer a justiciable controversy between the parties and the S tate ’ s suit against appellee s is moot. See
Matthews , 484 S.W.3d at 418

. Th us , we va cate the t rial court ’ s order gra ntin g a ppellees ’ motio n to show authority and dismissing the State ’ s suit in its entirety and dismiss this appeal and the underlying case for want of jurisdiction

. See Heckman v. Williamson C ou nty , 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) ( “If a case is or becomes moot , the court must vacate any order or judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.” )

.3 __________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis , Justice
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Theofanis
Vacated a nd D ismissed for Want of Ju ri sdiction
Filed: February 24, 2023