Court Opinion

ID: 9385539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 09:11:13.906261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.602829
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-16-00446-CV

JAY PARKER AND
LINDSEY PARKER,
                                                            Appellants
v.

GLENN WEBER,
                                                            Appellee

                           From the 74th District Court
                            McLennan County, Texas
                           Trial Court No. 2015-2039-3

                CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Because today we issue a memorandum opinion in a case that has been pending

more than half a decade with this court, we owe it to the litigants and the public to

detail the procedural background of this appeal. We are directed by the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure to render our judgment promptly, which this Court has failed to

do here. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.1; see also Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(9), reprinted
in TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. B ("A judge should dispose of all judicial

matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly.")

       The notice of appeal was filed on December 29, 2016. A memorandum opinion,

authored by Chief Justice Gray and joined by Justice Davis and Justice Scoggins, issued

on May 16, 2018. Weber filed a motion for rehearing shortly thereafter, followed by the

Parkers' response. Weber's motion for rehearing was granted on December 30, 2020.

        In the order granting rehearing, Chief Justice Gray explained the two-year five-

month delay was caused by “administrative responsibilities and case priorities [that]

have unduly interrupted and delayed the disposition of the motion. This delay is my

responsibility. It should not be attributed to either of the other justices on the panel.”

Chief Justice Gray in the order’s conclusion stated,

              Accordingly, without regard to the merits of the motion for
       rehearing, the motion for rehearing is granted, the opinion and judgment
       issued on May 16, 2018, are withdrawn, the submission of the case is set
       aside, and the case is returned to the docket of the Court to be addressed
       in due order. As one of the oldest cases on the Court's docket, that “due
       order” will be a high priority.

              Sincere apologies for this inordinate delay are extended to the
       clients who have been ably represented by their attorneys in this
       proceeding.

       On November 3, 2022, Chief Justice Gray recused himself from the case. The case

was reassigned to Justice Smith and, after approximately five months, this panel now

issues this memorandum opinion in this cause. We have endeavored to resolve the case

as promptly as possible. I join the majority opinion and respectfully concur.
Parker v. Weber                                                                      Page 2
                  MATT JOHNSON
                  Justice

Parker v. Weber                  Page 3