Court Opinion

ID: 9777996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:29:41.659683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:02.940354
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
NYE, Chief Justice.
Appellees have filed a motion for rehearing complaining that our original opinion should not have been issued because the case had been settled. Instead, they argue, the appeal should have been disposed of “on the basis of the agreement signed by all parties and filed with the clerk prior to submission.”
The motion, filed one day before this Court had set the case for submission, was not a settlement. Nowhere does it state as much. The motion stated:
Under the facts of this case, Appellees agree that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CCISD and its superintendent was supported by proper interpretation of Article I, § 27 and by Article 5154c Sec. 6, and by proper summary judgment evidence. Appel-lees agree that the Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should have been granted by the trial court. (Emphasis supplied.)
The prayer of the Motion read in part as follows:
WHEREFORE, ... Appellants, ... and ... Appellees, request the Court, pursuant to Rule 387a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, to:
(1) Reverse the judgment of the trial court;
(2) Render judgment declaring that neither Article I, § 27 of the Texas Constitution nor Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5154c Sec. 6 requires the Board of Trustees to grant a hearing on Appel-lees’ grievances regarding wages, hours of work, or conditions of work, and that, under the facts of this case, CCISD Board Policy No. ⅛237 does not violate Article I, § 27 or Article 5154c Sec. 6_ (Emphasis supplied.)
Our opinion was not advisory. It is in accord with the parties’ motion, which was granted in the opinion. The opinion demonstrates exactly what the parties asked us to do in reversing and rendering the trial court’s judgment. In doing so, we explained our reasons why the motion could be granted and the judgment should be reversed and rendered. The trial court was entitled to as much.
Neither the appeal nor the motion had been disposed of before submission. It was clearly within our discretion to issue an opinion in the case. TEX.R.CIY.P. 387a(d) (Vernon 1985); TEX.R.CIV.P. 452 (Vernon 1985).
The motion for hearing is overruled.