Court Opinion

ID: 9770234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:55:20.28382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:42.272610
License: Public Domain

Justice DOGGETT, joined by GAMMAGE and SPECTOR, JJ.,
dissenting.
Bonnie Weirich lost her children, and now the public has lost any real, continuing use of the final judicial writing recounting her ordeal, which involved a nearly twelve-year journey through the legal system. After obtaining a judgment against her former husband and mother-in-law for their respective roles in the seven-year parental kidnapping of her two children, she suffered defeat in the court of appeals in 1990. Weirich v. Weirich, 796 S.W.2d 513 (Tex.App.1990). This Court reversed and remanded to that court in 1992. Weirich v. Weirich, 833 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.1992). On remand, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but denied Weirich’s request to publish its opinion, the last chapter in what had become a handbook on the application of the civil parental kidnapping statute. See Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 36.02 (Vernon 1986) (Liability for Interference with Child Custody). I dissent today not only because of the importance of publishing this particular opinion, but also because of the public interest in discouraging an expanding body of semi-secret law.
For a variety of reasons, one of which no doubt is the hope that a lesser standard of scrutiny will be applied by this Court,1 some of our courts of appeals continue to restrict publication of large segments of their work.2 The privatization of this written product makes a taxpayer financed appellate endeav- or useless for all but the litigants involved. This development conflicts with the important principle we recently affirmed that “[o]ur courts are endowed with a public purpose — they do not sit merely as private tribunals to resolve private disputes.” Houston Cable TV, Inc. v. Inwood West Civic Assoc., 860 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.1993) (per curiam); Public Citizen v. Third Court of Appeals, 846 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Tex.1993) (Doggett, J., concurring on Order Denying Petition for Publication).3 Just as this Court eventually acted to disapprove of what was basically the buying and selling of judicial opinions through vacatur, it should also discourage concealing such opinions from public usage.
Content with the notion that “all opinions ... are available to the public,” 867 S.W.2d at 788, Justice Enoch mistakes possible avail*790ability for probable accessibility. Obstacles to access can develop even for published opinions. See Walter Borges, Courts Profit Nicely from Copy Fees, Tex.LawyeR, Aug. 30, 1993, at 1 (describing $172.80 charge by one court of appeals for an opinion of great public interest as well as $1 per page charges for opinions at thirteen of the fourteen courts of appeals). For unpublished opinions, the barriers to access are truly significant. Theoretically, the public may be able to get an unpublished opinion from the clerk of a court of appeals, but there is no mechanism for comprehensive tracking of such writings to determine their subject matter or even that they have been released. During the last state fiscal year, there were unpublished opinions in 3,039 civil cases.4 Apparently the only way to stay abreast of these decisions is by repeated visits to the clerks of these fourteen courts or by relying on the incomplete coverage of an expensive electronic database service.5
Even on those occasions when access is obtained to an unpublished opinion, a practitioner is unable to use that decision as legal authority. Tex.R.App.P. 90(i). While such an opinion may enlighten an attorney, the parties are nonetheless bound to relitigate an issue which may already have been decided. The attorneys are
put in the position of finding a court of appeals decision directly on point, but being unable to cite the opinion to a trial court whose own decision will be appealed to the same court of appeals, or even worse, being unable to cite the opinion to the same court of appeals.
See Herring, supra note 5. Lawyers are “misled because they cannot follow these new trends in the law ... [and] are forced to rely on old authority, and, through no fault of their own, risk reversal on appeal.” Paul W. Nye, The Unpublished Opinion Controversy (The Great Judicial Coverwp), 4 Advanced Appellate PRAC. COURSE W-l (1990). Appropriately described as “citation censorship,” Herring, supra, at 25, stamping an opinion “do not publish” can be almost as effective in removing a writing from the public domain as sealing it, a practice we have previously prohibited. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a(l).
At least one member of this Court, in his public comments, has advocated publication of all appellate opinions. Tape of Third Annual Conference on Techniques for Handling Civil Appeals, University of Texas School of Law (June 11, 1993) (Remarks of Justice Raul A. Gonzalez) (“[Given] the uneven application of Rule 90 by the courts of appeals or even different panels within the courts of appeals- I advocate to ... publish them all.”). He does not express that view today, and I do not share it. Those appellate writings which concern matters so trivial or fact-specific as to have little potential for broader application certainly need not be published,6 but many unpublished opinions constitute an important part of our collective common law jurisprudence.
A growing body of unpublished law could also lead us to the next and more perverse step of depublication. The California Supreme Court has assumed the pernicious power to “decertify” decisions of intermediate courts of appeals. Cal.R.Ct. 976(c)(2), 979(d). The result of “unabated” depublication, as one commentator noted, is that
more and more of the case law of California will become invisible. The uncertainty created by the potential for depublication pervades every new opinion that emerges from the courts of appeal. Lawyers are reluctant to cite a new case, and other courts of appeal are reluctant to rely on it until enough time has elapsed to assure its survival as a published opinion.
*791Gerald F. Uelman, Mainstream Justice, Cal. Law., July 1989, at 40; see also Lisa Stansky, Depublication: Law Made by Eraser, The RECORDER, Jan. 9, 1990 (Supp.), at 2.
In contrast, for now at least, when this Court grants an application for writ of error to review what is believed to be an erroneous intermediate court decision, that same erroneous opinion of the court of appeals is ordered to be published. TexR.App.P. 90(h). Such publication is directed to aid understanding of the subsequent disposition by this Court. Surely the same reasoning should apply when, subsequent to our determination that the intermediate court erred, that court corrects its mistake on remand. In such a case, a motion for publication should be generously granted to assure full understanding by all observers of the complete judicial decisionmaking process. Leaving one opinion unpublished not only prevents the underlying effort from assisting in future decisions, but also hinders the ability of practitioners and legal scholars to trace the case history and gain insight into the ultimate disposition. Despite the considerable attention this particular case has drawn, any attempt to analyze it will be incomplete due to an inability to read the final chapter.
And that chapter qualifies under either of the first two of the various alternative grounds under our rule mandating publication if the writing
(1) establishes a new rule of law, alters or modifies an existing rule, or applies an existing rule to a novel fact situation likely to recur in future cases; (2) involves a legal issue of continuing public interest; (3) criticizes existing law; or (4) resolves an apparent conflict of authority.
TexR.App.P. 90(d). With at least 100,000 parental kidnappings annually, this is a serious nationwide problem. See Leonard Karp and Cheryl L. Karp, Domestic Torts 192 (1989). As some of those kidnappers become defendants in Texas civil proceedings, it will be necessary to answer a variety of questions regarding the application of section 36.02 of the Family Code. Several of these matters were addressed here by the court of appeals, including the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a jury finding of liability for takers and aiders or assistors, the submission of separate statutory violations in a single jury question, the availability of common law causes of action in conjunction with a statutory child abduction suit, and the submission of a predicated damage question subjecting multiple defendants to joint and several liability for statutory child abduction. These issues will continue to arise until they are settled by authoritative opinions. Failure to publish such an opinion increases the cost to future litigants of prolonged debate over these issues due to a lack of guidance from the judiciary.
Because it is important to the jurisprudence of the state that this opinion, and others like it, be available for review and reliance by all citizens, I dissent.

.This is legal realism, not emotional cynicism as claimed by the concurrence of Justice Enoch. 867 S.W.2d at 787. Nor am I the first to note the potential effect of publication on the scrutiny applied by this Court. As another well-versed commentator observed:
Strategically, the petitioner’s chances of a grant of an application for writ of error are increased if the court of appeals' opinion is published. If the court of appeals' opinion is unpublished, the petitioner should consider filing a motion to publish the opinion in the court of appeals.
James A. Vaught, Internal Procedures and Motion Practice in the Supreme Court, State Bar of Texas, 7th Annual Advanced Civil Appellate Prac. Course E-ll (1993). Although only about 30% of the opinions by the courts of appeals are published, see infra note 2, during the last annual reporting period 82.7% of the applications for writ of error granted by this Court involved published opinions; only 17.3% involved unpublished opinions. Id. at E-10.

. During the last annual reporting period, Sept. 1, 1992-Aug. 31, 1993, the fourteen courts of appeals published only thirty percent of their opinions. Office of Court Administration, Official Docket Activity Report for the Fourteen Courts of Appeals 6 (Aug. 1993). Publication rates vary dramatically. The 13 th court in Corpus Christi, published 42% of its opinions while the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th and 12th courts (Fort Worth, San Antonio, Dallas, Amarillo, Eastland and Tyler) all published less than 20% of their opinions during that time. Official Docket Activity Report, supra. This disparity is not a recent development. See Frank G. Evans, et al.. To Publish or Not to Publish? That is the Question, 24 HousLaw. 18, 19 (July-Aug.1986).

. For those who question the value of separate writings on motions such as that presented today, Public Citizen is instructive. Much of it was adopted verbatim a few months later by this Court in Houston Cable TV, 860 S.W.2d at 73.

. Of these, for the most part it is those in which a motion to publish has been filed that really raise the question presented today. Justice Enoch’s reference to a much larger number is misleading.

. The releasing of unpublished opinions to electronic databases appears to be somewhat inconsistent. Charles Herring, Jr., Tomb of the Unknown Precedent: Appellate Rule 90 and the Rash of Unpublished Opinions, TexXawyer, Oct. 8, 1990, 24.

.Contrary to Justice Enoch’s suggestion, 867 S.W.2d at 787, my objection is not to Rule 90, but to its misapplication by courts to deny publication requests in cases such as this that involve questions of clear public import.