Court Opinion

ID: 9365490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 11:09:59.151544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:45.688659
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                   San Antonio, Texas
                                         January 18, 2023

                   Nos. 04-19-00714-CV, 04-19-00715-CV, 04-19-00716-CV

                                       Todd A. DURDEN,
                                           Appellant

                                                 v.

  James T. “Tully” SHAHAN, in his Official Capacity as County Judge; Mark Frerich, in his
 Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Joe Montalvo, in his Official Capacity as County
Commissioner; Dennis Dodson, in his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Tim Ward, in
 his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Kinney County Commissioners Court; Kinney
  County; and Rick Alvarado, in his Official Capacity as District and County Clerk of Kinney,
                                          Appellees

                  From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinney County, Texas
                              Trial Court Nos. 4845, 4863, 4866
                           Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

                                         ORDER
        On December 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas issued its opinion and judgment in
its cause number 21-1003.
       The Court affirmed in part this court’s May 12, 2021 judgments: it finally disposed of the
questions of lack of authority to file the underlying suits on the State’s behalf.
       The Court reversed the portions of our judgments pertaining to Durden’s issues regarding
sanctions. It remanded the causes to this court for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion.
       Accordingly, we conclude that Todd A. Durden, in his individual capacity, is now the
sole appellant in the respective appeals, and the only remaining issues are those pertaining to the
court-ordered sanctions.
        Given these changes in parties and issues, updated briefing will benefit the parties and aid
this court’s decisional process. We ORDER the parties to file amended briefs.
       Appellant’s amended brief is due within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
Appellant’s brief must comply with Rule 38.1, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, and Local Rule 8, see
4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 8 cmt. (“The Court interprets the term ‘amended brief’ to
mean a brief that completely replaces the original brief.”).

       Appellees’ amended brief will be due THIRTY DAYS after Appellants’ amended brief is
filed. Appellees’ brief must also comply with Rule 38.2 and Local Rule 8. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.2; 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 8.

       It is so ORDERED January 18, 2023.

                                                                  PER CURIAM

      ATTESTED TO: ______________________________
                   MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court