Court Opinion

ID: 9662735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:16:24.00982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:41.849988
License: Public Domain

SUE WALKER, Justice,
concurring on rehearing.
I concur with the majority’s opinion on rehearing denying Appellee Tarrant County’s motion for rehearing in this appeal. The majority correctly holds that Appellant Tammy Howlett substantially complied with section 89.0041 of the Texas Local Government Code if that section is applicable to her suit. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 89.0041 (Vernon 2008). I write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority’s analysis of Dallas County v. Coutee, 233 S.W.3d 542, 543 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied), and analysis of the scope of applicability of section 89.0041; in light of the majority's holding that Howlett substantially complied with section 89.0041, I believe that the majority’s analysis of Coutee and of the scope of applicability of section 89.0041 are dicta. See Black’s Law Dictionary 409 *848(5th ed. 1979) (defining dictum as an observation or remark made concerning some rule, principle, or application of law suggested in a particular case, which observation or remark is not necessary to the determination of the case); see generally Cont’l Cas. Ins. Co. v. Functional Restoration Assocs., 19 S.W.3d 393, 400 n. 6 (Tex.2000) (noting dicta is not binding); Pierre N. Leval, Judging Under the Constitution: Dicta About Dicta, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1249, 1261-63 (2006) (discussing reasons that “disfavor lawmaking through dictum”). Because I agree with the majority’s ultimate holding that, in any event, Howlett substantially complied with section 89.0041,1 respectfully concur.