From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duncan v. Pogue

Supreme Court of Texas
Nov 30, 1988
759 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. 1988)

Summary

affirming Mays standard of review

Summary of this case from Opinion No. DM-74

Opinion

No. C-7838.

October 5, 1988. Rehearing Denied November 30, 1988.

Appeal from the 62nd District Court, Hopkins County, Gay Jones, J.

W.T. Allison, II, Sulphur Springs, for petitioner.

Allison Associates, James P. Allison, Austin, for respondents.


Darlene Duncan, a court reporter, sued the Hopkins County Commissioners Court to compel it to fund a ten percent salary increase ordered by the district judge pursuant to Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 52.051 (Vernon 1988). The Commissioners Court counter-claimed for relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Tex.Civ.Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 37.009 (Vernon 1986). The trial court, with another judge sitting by appointment, granted Duncan's motion for summary judgment, ordered the Commissioners Court to fund the salary increase, and awarded Duncan attorney fees. The court of appeals reversed that judgment and remanded the cause for trial on the merits. 753 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.App. — Tyler 1988). Because the court of appeals' decision conflicts with Mays v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 755 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. 1988) and is contrary to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, we grant the application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for further consideration. See Tex.R.App.P. 133(b).

In Mays we held that so long as a district judge's order of a pay increase was within the ten percent authorized by section 52.051(d) it was presumptively valid. Although it is undisputed in this case that the pay increase was within the statutory ten percent, the court of appeals did not recognize any presumption of validity but instead concluded that Duncan had the burden of establishing that the pay increase was reasonable. This decision conflicts with our own opinion in Mays.

Furthermore, the trial judge acted within his discretion in awarding attorney fees to Duncan. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act expressly provides that "the court may award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees as are equitable and just." Tex.Civ.Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 37.009 (Vernon 1986). The court of appeals' decision to strike the award of attorney fees is contrary to this statutory authorization.

A majority of the court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the cause to that court for it to consider the Commissioners Court's other points of error which were not previously addressed.


Summaries of

Duncan v. Pogue

Supreme Court of Texas
Nov 30, 1988
759 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. 1988)

affirming Mays standard of review

Summary of this case from Opinion No. DM-74

In Duncan v. Pogue, 759 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. 1988), rev'g 753 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.App. — Tyler 1988), without mentioning governmental immunity, we concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding attorney fees against the county commissioners' court.

Summary of this case from Texas Educ. Agency v. Leeper

In Duncan, the court wrote that an order of such a pay increase, so long as it was within the statutory limits, "was presumptively valid."

Summary of this case from Opinion No. JC-0361
Case details for

Duncan v. Pogue

Case Details

Full title:Darlene DUNCAN, Petitioner, v. Joe POGUE, County Judge, et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Nov 30, 1988

Citations

759 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. 1988)

Citing Cases

Rodeheaver v. Steigerwald

On original submission, we held that a governmental unit is not immune from liability for attorney's fees…

City of El Paso v. Croom Construction Co.

37.001. In the only Texas Supreme Court case addressing this issue, the high court found no abuse of…