Roccaforte v. Jefferson County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) A person filing suit against a county or against a county official in the official's capacity as a county official shall deliver written notice to: (1) the county judge; and (2) the county or district attorney having jurisdiction to defend the county in a civil suit. (b) The written notice must be delivered by certified or registered mail by the 30th business day after suit is filed and contain: (1) the style and cause number of the suit; (2) the court in which the suit was filed; (3) the date on which the suit was filed; and (4)the name of the person filing suit. (c)If a person does not give notice as required by this section, the court in which the suit is pending shall dismiss the suit on a motion for dismissal made by the county or the county official.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morgan v. Plano Independent School District · Ac Interests, L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

2. “local government code section 89.0041 [does not] show such intent: that section states that a trial court may dismiss a case for noncompliance only after the governmental entity has moved for dismissal. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 89.0041(c) (“If a person does not give notice as required by this section, the court in which the suit is pending shall dismiss the suit on a motion for dismissal made by the county or the county official.”). The motion requirement means that a case may proceed against those governmental entities that do not seek dismissal- — in other words, that a county can waive a party’s noncompliance. This confirms that compliance with the notice requirements is not jurisdictional. See [University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas v. ]Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d [351] at 359 [Tex.2004] (“The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Comptroller v. LANDSFELD

3. “[W]e have repeatedly stressed that procedural rules should be construed and applied so that the right of appeal is not unnecessarily lost to technicalities.”). We overrule Bradford's motion to dismiss. 2 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tammy Anderson v. Houston Community College System and Johnella R. Bradford, Individually