Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

198 S.W.3d 819

Vega v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · decided 2006-08-31

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2008

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-08-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Dissenting Opinion on Designation by

Justice CASTILLO.1

¶2Respectfully, I believe the opinion and the dissent meet the requirements to be designated a published opinion under the criteria of rule 47.4. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4. Rule 47.4 states, in pertinent part:

An opinion must be designated a memorandum opinion unless it does any of the following:
(a) establishes a new rule of law, alters or modifies an existing rule, or applies an existing rule to a novel fact situation likely to recur in future cases;
(b) involves issues of constitutional law or other legal issues important to the jurisprudence of Texas;
(c) criticizes existing law; or
(d) resolves an apparent conflict of authority.

¶3Tex.R.App. P. 47.4. (Emphasis added). The majority opinion and the dissent do not meet any of the criteria with respect to designation and, thus, designation as an “opinion” is the exception and not the rule. See id. Because I would designate the opinion as a memorandum opinion, I respectfully disagree with the panel majority with respect to designation. Id. Even so, I am pleased that the parties receive their answer today, under either designation.

¶4. The designation of this opinion is also mandated by the majority’s decision on designation.

/198/sw3d/819 · .json · Public domain