From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nelson v. Woodward

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifteenth District
Nov 19, 2024
No. 15-24-00074-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 19, 2024)

Opinion

15-24-00074-CV

11-19-2024

JANE NELSON IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant v. JARRETT WOODWARD, HEATHER COUCHMAN, AMBER CLOY, TOMMIE DICKINSON, TRAVIS EUBANKS, AMANDA EUBANKS, TRACI JONES, LARS KUSLICH, MICHELLE PIQUE, MADELON HIGHSMITH, AND SHARON COTTON, VOTERS OF BEXAR COUNTY, Appellees


On Appeal from the 261st District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-23-008185

En Banc Court consists of Chief Justices Brister and Justices Field and Farris.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Currently pending before the court is appellees' motion seeking recusal of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.

Rule 16.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that the grounds for recusal are the "same as those provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure." Tex.R.App.P. 16.2. Rule 18b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure identifies the grounds for recusal. Tex.R.Civ.P. 18b(b); F.S. New Products, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 129 S.W.3d 594, 597 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). It provides, among other matters that a judge shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned or he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Tex.R.Civ.P. 18b(b)(1), (2).

Rule 16.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed for recusal of an appellate justice or judge:

Before any further proceeding in the case, the challenged justice or judge must either remove himself or herself from all participation in the case or certify the matter to the entire court, which will decide the motion by a majority of the remaining judges sitting en banc. The challenged justice or judge must not sit with the remainder of the court to consider the motion as to him or her.
Tex. R. App. P. 16.3(b); F.S. New Products, 129 S.W.3d at 597; Williams v. Viswanathan, 65 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, no pet.).

Pursuant to the procedure set forth in rule 16.3(b), upon the filing of the recusal motion and prior to any further proceedings in this appeal, each of the challenged justices of this court considered the motions in chambers. Chief Justice Brister, Justice Field, and Justice Farris each found no reason to recuse themselves and certified the matter to the remaining members of the court. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.3. This court then followed the accepted procedure set out in rule 16.3(b). See Manges v. Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984). The justices then deliberated and decided the motion to recuse with respect to each challenged justice by a vote of the remaining participating justices. No challenged justice sat with the other members of the court when his or her challenge was considered. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.3(b).

Having considered the motion as to each challenged justice, and finding no basis for recusal, the motion to recuse is denied with respect to each challenged justice. The court enters the following orders:

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO CHIEF JUSTICE BRISTER

In accordance with Rule 16.3(b), Chief Justice Brister certified appellees' motion to recuse him to the en banc court. This court, Chief Justice Brister not participating, finds no reason to recuse Chief Justice Brister. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.2; Tex.R.Civ.P. 18b(b). Accordingly, appellees' motion to recuse Chief Justice Brister is denied.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE FIELD

In accordance with Rule 16.3(b), Justice Field certified appellees' motion to recuse him to the en banc court. This court, Justice Field not participating, finds no reason to recuse Justice Field. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.2; Tex.R.Civ.P. 18b(b). Accordingly, appellees' motion to recuse Justice Field is denied.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE FARRIS

In accordance with Rule 16.3(b), Justice Farris certified appellees' motion to recuse her to the en banc court. This court, Justice Farris not participating, finds no reason to recuse Justice Farris. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.2; Tex.R.Civ.P. 18b(b). Accordingly, appellees' motion to recuse Justice Farris is denied.


Summaries of

Nelson v. Woodward

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifteenth District
Nov 19, 2024
No. 15-24-00074-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 19, 2024)
Case details for

Nelson v. Woodward

Case Details

Full title:JANE NELSON IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifteenth District

Date published: Nov 19, 2024

Citations

No. 15-24-00074-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 19, 2024)