Court Opinion

ID: 9669422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:55:52.294797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:56.567307
License: Public Domain

DON BURGESS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the reversal, but dissent to the rendition. I would affirm the awarding of attorney’s fees. The trial judge is in the best position to gauge the positions of the parties and their attorneys. The sanction was for the motion for new trial and its hearing. Simply because a party has the right to file a motion for new trial does not mean a trial judge may not find the filing to be frivolous.1 I do not believe the *773trial judge abused his discretion and would affirm the court’s judgment in its entirety.

. Furthermore, a party has the right to appeal, yet the appeal may be frivolous. Indeed, one might, from a pragmatic view, conclude this appeal meets that criteria. The point of the litigation was to suspend Friedel's driving privileges based on the failure to take an alcohol concentration test. Judge Martin’s judgment was signed on March 18, 2002, and that judgment stayed the suspension of Frie-del’s license. Had the DPS accepted that *773judgment, surely the State Office of Administrative Hearing could have reheard the matter long before this appeal could have been accomplished. Was the motion for new trial and this appeal the best utilization of the scarce resources the Legislature affords state agencies and courts? This writer thinks not!