OPINION
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Rolling Plains Groundwater Conservation District v. City of Aspermont, TX, (Tex. 2011)
(Opinion by Justice )
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
FULL TEXT OF OPINION [ forthcoming ]
Supreme Court opinions are available in pdf from the Court's website. Follow docket-number hotlink or click the
case-style hyperlink to view and/or download the pdf file.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW: Court of Appeals
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see: Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Rolling Plains Groundwater Conservation District v. City of Aspermont, TX,
No. 08-0591 (Tex. Oct 21, 2011) (per curiam)
ROLLING PLAINS GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT v. CITY OF ASPERMONT, TEXAS; from
Stonewall County; 11th district (11-07-00009-CV, 258 SW3d 231, 05-08-08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing
oral argument, the Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Per Curiam Opinion
View Electronic Briefs in 08-0591 ROLLING PLAINS GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT v. CITY OF
ASPERMONT, TEXAS [including three amicus briefs]
EXCERPT FROM PER CURIAM OPINION
Rolling Plains Groundwater Conservation District sued the City of Aspermont for water
transportation fees and for a declaration that the City must comply with the District’s rules. The
court of appeals held that governmental immunity barred the District’s claim for payment but not
its declaratory judgment action. 258 S.W.3d 231, 236. While this appeal was pending, we decided
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 368-69 (Tex. 2009), which is consistent with the court
of appeals’ ultimate holding with respect to the District’s claim for past due fees, penalties, and
costs. Consequently, we reject the District’s arguments to the contrary. The City did not seek
review of the court of appeals’ declaratory judgment holding. Accordingly, we affirm the court of
appeals’ judgment.
Because the District’s claim for past due fees, penalties, and costs would result in the
payment of retroactive monetary damages, the court of appeals correctly concluded that
governmental immunity bars the claim. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the
petition for review and affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, 60.2(a).