Carol Severance v. Jerry Patterson ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 07-20409   Document: 00511862849   Page: 1   Date Filed: 05/21/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 21, 2012
    No. 07-20409                    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    CAROL SEVERANCE
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    JERRY PATTERSON, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office;
    GREG ABBOTT, Attorney General for the State of Texas;
    KURT SISTRUNK, District Attorney for the County of Galveston, Texas
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:
    The Texas Supreme Court answered our certified questions in this case,
    see Severance v. Patterson, 
    566 F.3d 490
    , 503-04 (5th Cir. 2009), by declaring
    that Texas law does not recognize a “rolling easement” created by avulsive
    events affecting the dry beach of Galveston's West Beach.          Severance v.
    Patterson, No. 09-0387, Tex S.Ct. April 19, 2012, op. on reh. For the panel
    majority, this answer reifies the claim of appellant Severance to an
    “unreasonable” seizure violative of the Fourth Amendment in the State's
    assertion of an easement (and related regulatory violations) on her beachfront
    Case: 07-20409   Document: 00511862849       Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/21/2012
    No. 07-20409
    property following Hurricane Rita. (Judge Wiener continues to dissent on this
    portion of the prior and present dispositions.)
    Because the potential existence of this constitutional claim is now
    confirmed, the district court’s judgment against Severance predicated on FED.
    R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) must be reversed.
    Based on submissions from both parties following the state Supreme
    Court's ruling and its remission of the case to this court, we are unpersuaded
    that the case is likely moot. At the same time, what issues must now be
    determined, aside from attorneys' fees accruing to the appellant, is unclear.
    Therefore, the case is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in
    connection with Severance’s Fourth Amendment claim.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-20409

Judges: Jones, Wiener, Clement

Filed Date: 5/21/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024