Court Opinion

ID: 9775215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:50:19.231716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:23.566575
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing, Bownds contends the writ of certiorari was in fact issued by the trial court. However, the instrument Bownds denominates as the writ of certiorari is only the order of the trial court granting the application for the writ and directing its issuance. The record before us does not contain the writ of certio-rari and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the writ was ever issued. Therefore, for the reasons stated in our original opinion, the trial court was without jurisdiction to try the merits of this controversy.
Bownds also requests assessment of all or part of the costs against the City. He points specifically to a 123 page exhibit introduced by the City and included in the statement of facts. The exhibit contained only a few pages of information pertinent to this ease. The record reveals, however, that the City initially offered only the relevant pages and the immaterial pages were placed in evidence at Bownd’s request “so the Court can see the various objections of the various other cases that came before the Board.”
Rule 448, Tex.R.Civ.P., entitles the appellant City to recover costs upon a reversal unless this court concludes there is good cause to tax the costs in some other manner. Under this record, Bownds has not demonstrated good cause to do so.
We have considered all arguments made in the motion for rehearing. We are not convinced, however, that our original opinion was in error. The motion for rehearing is overruled.