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, Appellees 

FROM 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, the State of Texas filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

order granting appellees’ motion to show authority and dismissing the underlying case in its 

entirety. The State sued appellees to challenge the Elgin Independent School District’s mask 

mandate for students, parents, and visitors on the School District’s property. 

 On January 25, 2023, the Clerk of this Court requested a response from the State 

explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this matter because it appeared that the 

State’s suit against appellees was moot. “The mootness doctrine applies to cases 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 rendering 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 represents that the appeal and the underlying case are

moot because the School District’s mask mandate has been rescinded. The State cites minutes

from the School District’s board meeting on February 28, 2022. Because the minutes impact this 

Court’s jurisdiction, we take judicial notice of them. See Tex. R. Evid. 201 (addressing 

court’s authority to judicially notice adjudicative facts); Meeker v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist., 

317 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. denied) (discussing mootness doctrine

and explaining 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 trial court’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) (explaining that appellate courts may take judicial notice of facts outside record to 

determine jurisdiction over appeal).

Because the School District has rescinded the mask mandate, there is no longer a 

justiciable controversy between the parties and the State’s suit against appellees is moot. See

Matthews, 484 S.W.3d at 418. Thus, we vacate the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motion

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 County, 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 and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 24, 2023