Court Opinion

ID: 9617936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:04:01.935235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:21.013399
License: Public Domain

REAVIS, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion by Chief Justice John T. Boyd, however I write separately regarding movants’ contention that Justice Brian Quinn should recuse himself because he has a “financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding” from a slightly different perspective.
Movants contend that because Texas Tech School of Law provides Justice Quinn with an office and he serves as an instruc*694tor on a part-time basis at the School of Law compels that he should be recused. I disagree. The alleged financial interest is not grounds for recusal under Rules 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, nor Rule 18b(2) and (f)(ii) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as movants contend. First, any benefit accruing to Justice Quinn is not a “financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 18b(2), (3). Second, Texas law recognizes the common law maximum of de minimis non curat lex.1 HSAM Inc. v. Gatter, 814 S.W.2d 887, 892 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1991, writ dism’d by agr.). Movants have not cited any authority holding or suggesting that in actions where the State of Texas is a party, that because State judges or justices are on the State payroll, they have a financial interest or other interest requiring their recusal. Similarly, even though Texas Tech University provides Justice Quinn with an office, and he teaches part-time at the School of Law, the de minimus applies to whatever financial interest may be implicated.

. The law does not concern itself about trifles.