Court Opinion

ID: 9640348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:04:00.674366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:29.216772
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The appellee, Alan Than, has filed a motion for contempt in this Court and prayed for the following relief: (1) that the appellant, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston (UTMS), be ordered to issue a Certificate of Professional Education to the University of Virginia Health Science Center for him in connection with his residency; (2) that UTMS be ordered to furnish him with his diploma for purposes of the FLEX examination; and (3) that UTMS be ordered to allow him to participate in commencement proceedings on June 5, 1992.
This motion was filed in connection with the appeal from the trial court’s temporary injunction order of November 26, 1991. The order restrained UTMS from taking any action against Than as a result of its determination that he was guilty of academic dishonesty and should be expelled. Among other things, UTMS was ordered to respond to Than’s request for letters and information required by him in applying for residencies, but UTMS was permitted to state that litigation was pending, giving the cause number, while otherwise maintaining the confidentiality of the school proceedings. The appeal from the temporary injunction has not yet been heard before this Court.
The majority grants the third ground of relief sought by Than in his motion for contempt, without finding UTMS in contempt, and orders the motion for contempt to be taken with the case. The majority justifies its action under TexR.App.P. 43(c). Rule 43(c) provides:
On perfection of an appeal from an interlocutory order, the appellate court may issue such temporary orders as it finds necessary to preserve the rights of the parties....
First, I can find no legal authority authorizing a court to order relief requested in a motion of contempt without first deciding the contempt.
Second, rule 43(c) is invoked to “preserve” the “right” of Than to walk across the stage at commencement exercises. The majority finds this “right” on page three of the temporary injunction order, which states:
ORDERED that [UTMS] ... are hereby restrained from taking any action against [Than] as a result of their determination that [Than] was guilty of academic dishonesty and should be expelled from school, specifically:
1. That [UTMS] treat Than, with respect to his continued studies and other activities within and in connection with medical school, such as registering for and attending classes, performing clinics and taking examinations, as a student in good standing;
[[Image here]]
4. That [UTMS] respond as they would to any similarly situated student in good standing, to [Than’s] request for all letters and other information required by [Than] in making his application(s) for residencies. [UTMS] may, however, apprise any institution to whom such infor*425mation is sent of the pendency of this litigation by including with such information a letter or statement that is worded as follows: “Please be advised that there is litigation pending at this time ... concerning Mr. Than’s surgery NBME grade. The outcome of this litigation may or may not affect Mr. Than’s recorded grade for surgery and his standing at the University”....
Nowhere in the above paragraphs does it state that Than be allowed to walk across the commencement stage. I find the language quoted above to lack the specificity necessary to grant the relief sought by Than in his motion for contempt. The majority is using rule 43(c) to grant the relief sought by Than in ground three of his prayer for relief in his motion for contempt, without ruling on his motion for contempt or addressing the validity or invalidity of the temporary injunction that the majority implies gives Than the “right” they are preserving.
I would deny the motion for contempt because of lack of specificity contained in the temporary injunction order, and I would not grant any temporary relief under rule 43(c). I agree that we need to hear the appeal from the temporary injunction on June 9.