Guitar Holding Co., LP, No. 06-0904 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(suppl. opinion on rehearing)
(per curiam) (abandonment of issues on appeal)

NO. 1, ET AL.; from Hudspeth County; 8th district
(08-04-00296-CV & 08-05-00115-CV, 209 SW3d 172, 08-31-06)
3 motions for rehearing
judgment issued March 30, 2008, withdrawn
corrected judgment issued   
Supplemental Per Curiam Opinion

See original opinion:
Guitar Holding Co. LP vs. Hudspeth County Underground Water Conservation District, No. 06-0904 (Tex. May 30,
2008) (Medina)(
water law | water use rights, administrative law, rule-making authority of governmental unit)



   On rehearing, the District points out that the court of appeals decided several issues that
were not included in the appeal to this Court.  In addition to the transfer rules at issue here,
Guitar Holding complained in the court of appeals about the District’s permitting scheme and
its application to Guitar Holding’s particular circumstances.  Also in the court of appeals, the
District obtained a remand for the determination of certain fees and costs denied it in the trial
court.  See Tex. Water Code § 36.066(g) (granting district, as prevailing party, its “attorney’s
fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs”).

   After the court of appeals’ decision in the District’s favor, Guitar Holding narrowed its
appeal to focus on the transfer rules.  The District submits that Guitar Holding thereby
abandoned these other issues but fears that our opinion and judgment may be
misunderstood on this point.  The District accordingly requests that we clarify that the court of
appeals’ judgment has been reversed only in part.

   We, of course, agree that issues not presented in the petition for review and brief on the
merits are waived. Tex. R. App. P 53.2(f); Tex. R. App. P 55.2(f); Ramos v. Richardson, 228
S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam).  We also agree that Guitar Holding abandoned
some issues in its appeal to this Court and that the court of appeals’ judgment remains in
effect as to these abandoned issues.  Accordingly, we grant the District’s motion for
rehearing to clarify that the court of appeals’ judgment is reversed only as to that part
upholding the validity of the District’s transfer rules and related permits.  The case is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

Opinion delivered:         August 29, 2008