law-ripeness (doctrine) | standing doctrine | mootness doctrine | justiciable controversy |
RIPENESS
Ripeness is a requirement of justiciability. Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2001); Patterson
v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998). The ripeness
doctrine conserves judicial time and resources for real and current controversies, rather than abstract,
hypothetical, or remote disputes. Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998); TCI
West End, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 274 S.W.3d 913, 918 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). The doctrine
prohibits suits involving “uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or
indeed may not occur at all.” Patterson, 971 S.W.3d at 442. A case is not ripe if its resolution depends
on contingent facts or upon events that have yet to come to pass. See id. at 443. SOURCE: DALLAS
COURT OF APPEAL - 05-10-00655-CV - 10/19/11
The Ripeness Doctrine in the Texas
Ripeness, like standing, is a component of subject matter jurisdiction, "and like standing emphasizes
the need for a concrete injury for a justiciable claim to be presented." Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson,
22 S.W.3d 849, 851 (Tex. 2000) (quoting Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston, 971 S.W.2d
439, 442 (Tex. 1998)).
Standing focuses on who may bring an action, while ripeness examines when an action may be
properly brought. Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at 442. In determining whether a claim is ripe, the court must
ask "whether the facts have developed sufficiently so that an injury has occurred or is likely to occur,
rather than being contingent or remote." Id. "Ripeness thus focuses on whether the case involves
`uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.'"
Id. (quoting 12A Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3532.1, 112 (2d ed. 1984)). "A case
is not ripe when its resolution depends on contingent or hypothetical facts, or upon events that have not
yet come to pass." Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at 442. Requiring a matter to be ripe conserves judicial time
and resources, reserving them "`for real and current controversies, rather than abstract, hypothetical, or
remote disputes.'" Id. at 443 (quoting Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998)).
And, it prevents courts from becoming entangled in abstract disagreements. Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at
443.
TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASES INVOLVING RIPENESS ISSUE
Robinson v. Parker [Houston Mayor], No. 08-0658 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)(Opinion by Justice Paul Green)
(ripeness doctrine)(jurisdictional dismissal)
In this case, we are asked to decide (1) whether citizens who signed a petition proposing a local ballot initiative
have standing to assert their declaratory judgment claims that the voter-approved initiative is valid and must be
enforced; and (2) the validity of the voter-approved initiative. Because the citizens' claims are not ripe, however,
we cannot reach those issues.
CARROLL G. ROBINSON, BRUCE R. HOTZE, AND JEFFREY N. DAILY v. ANNISE D. PARKER, MAYOR; CITY OF
HOUSTON; HOUSTON CITY COUNCIL, ET AL.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-00167-CV, 260 SW3d
463, 04-03-08)
The Court vacates the judgments of the court of appeals and the trial court and dismisses the case for want of
jurisdiction.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
Link to e-briefs: ROBINSON v. BILL WHITE, MAYOR (one amicus brief)
TEXAS COURTS OF APPEALS CASES (pet. denied)
08-0159
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. MAGUIRE OIL COMPANY, ET AL.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-05-01272-
CV, 243 SW3d 714, 10-11-07, pet. denied June 2008) (Justice Johnson not sitting) (ripeness doctrine, plea to
the jurisdiction)
07-0588
NACOGDOCHES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, D/B/A NACOGDOCHES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. CHARLES
RAY NEWMAN AND JIMMY WAYNE CURTIS; from Nacogdoches County; 12th district
(12-06-00375-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 05-23-07, pet. denied)(District lacked standing to bring suit against Newman
under Chapter 55 and a suit to enforce a Chapter 55 lien was not ripe)
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions homepage |