Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1971 )


Menu:
  • Hon. Dorsey B. Hardeman                 Opinion No. M-880
    Executive Director
    Texas Water Rights Commission           Re:   Interpretation of
    Austin, Texas  78711                          Final Judgment in
    Cause No. 261, Court
    of Civil Appeals for
    the Thirteenth Judi-
    cial District, styled
    State v. Hidalgo WCID
    Dear Senator Hardeman:                        No. 18, et al
    You have requested our opinion as tothe properinter-
    pretation of the final Judgment on Rehearing in the above
    styled and numbered cause, commonly referred to as the "Rio
    Grande Valley Water Case". You state that both judgments
    of that Court of Civil Appeals, the Original Judgment of
    March 27, 1969 and the Judgment on Rehearing dated June 6,
    1969, wherein writ of error was refused "NO Reversible
    Error", plainly provide for a Class "B" water right as
    to Griffin and Brand on page 11 of each instrument as fol-
    lows:
    Water Right
    TWC     Beard                                  Acreage
    "Court No.   No.    *Back-Up    Name of Property Owner      Recognized
    ...       . ..      .. .              . . . ..             ... ..
    470       S-94   M-10        Griffin & Brand of            435.00"
    McAllen, Texas
    You further state that the Supplemental Opinion, Per
    Curiam, issued simultaneously with the Original Judgment,
    dated March 27, 1969, denies any such water right to the
    named parties as follows, on page 22:
    -4294-
    Hon. Dorsey B. Hardeman, page 2            (M-880)
    "The trial court awarded Suntex
    Farms 500 acres and John A. Shuford 43
    acres under the Falcon classification.
    It was adjudged that Griffin and Brand
    of McAllen! Inc. and Ringgold Farms had
    no water rights. None of these parties
    have a connection with a certified filing
    or a permit. Suntex Farms is entitled
    to a Class B priority for 500 acres.
    Shuford is entitled to a Class B pri-
    ority for 43 acres. The trial court
    was correct in awarding no rights to
    the other two claimants.  Under the
    Valmont decision, Spanish grants in
    the area do not carry with them appur-
    tenant water rights for irrigation pur-
    poses."
    You ask us to advise as to whether Griffin & Brand
    of McAllen, Texas possess a Class "B" water right which
    should now be recognized by the Texas Water Rights Com-
    mission.
    We think the answers to your question depend on
    interpretation of the meaning of the following judgments
    and opinions of the Court of Civil Appeals in the case:
    (a)    Original opinion and opinion on Motions
    for Rehearings reported in 
    443 S.W.2d 728
    .
    (b)    Original Judgment of the Court dated
    March 27, 1969.
    Cc)    Unpublished Supplemental Opinion of the
    Court dated March 27, 1969.
    Cd)    Unpublished Supplemental Opinion of the
    Court on Rehearing, dated June 6, 1969.
    (e)   Judgment on Rehearing, dated June 6, 1969.
    -4295-
    Hon. Dorsey B. Hardeman, page 3          (M-880)
    In our opinion, the Judgment of June 6, 1969 which
    was denominated "Judgment on Rehearing", encompassing
    the last official Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals,
    and approved by the Texas Supreme Court with the notation
    of no reversible error, will control over the prior Judg-
    ment of March 27, 1969, and over the Supplemental Opinion
    issued March 27, 1969. A final Judgment controls over
    an opinion preceding the Judgment.  33 Tex.Jur. Zd, Judg-
    ments, Sections 03 and 84, citing cases. The Supreme
    Court has held that if a court had jurisdiction of the
    parties and subject matter, its final judgment involving
    the State of Texas must be deemed conclusive of all mat-
    ters therein litigated, regardless of how erroneous it
    might be. Martin v. Sheppard, 
    145 Tex. 639
    , 
    201 S.W.2d 810
    (1947).
    In accordance with this opinion, you should there-
    fore recognize the rights of Griffin and Brand to 435
    acres of water right acreage under the Class "B" section
    of the Judgment on Rehearing.
    SUMMARY
    Although the Original Supplemental Opinion
    of the Court of Civil Appeals ruled to the con-
    trary, Griffin and Brand have a Class "B" water
    right to 435.00 water right acres under that
    Court's Final Judgment on Rehearing, which con-
    trols over the Original Supplemental Opinion and
    must be deemed conclusive of that issue in liti-
    gation.
    General of Texas
    Prepared by Roger Tyler
    Assistant Attorney General
    -4296-
    Hon. Dorsey B. Hardeman, page 4     (M-880)
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Roland Allen
    John Banks ,~
    Fisher Tyler
    Scott Garrison
    MEADE F. GRIFFIN
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFRED WALKER
    Executive Assistant
    .
    NOLA WHITE                                    :
    First Assistant
    -4297-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-880

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1971

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017