in the Interest of Z.W.H., D.R.H., P.J.H., P.W.H., and G.M.H., Children ( 2004 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00304-CV

In the Interest of

Z.W.H., D.R.H., P.J.H., P.W.H., and G.M.H., Children

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 95-3329-1

DISSENTING OPINION FROM DENIAL OF MOTION FOR REHEARING

            In a separate order issued in this cause on this same date, we are granting the relief requested in the motion for rehearing by withdrawing our earlier judgment and correcting an alleged error in our original assessment of costs.  I would not grant the relief requested in the motion for rehearing without first requesting a response.  Tex. R. App. P. 49.2.

The Attorney General=s motion for rehearing asks us to reconsider our judgment assessing costs against the State when acting under Title IV-D.   I have long been opposed to any effort to re‑write, modify, or respond to arguments made in a motion for rehearing without requesting a response.  Campbell v. State, 128 S.W.3d 662, 680 (Tex. App.CWaco 2004, order) (Gray, C.J., dissenting); see also T.C. & C. Real Estate Holding, Inc. v. Sherrod, No. 10‑00‑002‑CV (Tex. App.CWaco Nov. 14, 2001, order) (Gray, J., dissenting) (not designated for publication); In re J.F.C., 57 S.W.3d 66, 76 (Tex. App.CWaco 2001) (Gray, J., dissenting), rev’d, 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).

We should first request a response; and after giving the appellee a chance to respond, only then should we grant the relief requested.  Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent from the denial of the motion for rehearing.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion from denial of motion for rehearing

  delivered and filed June 16, 2004

Publish