Duncan v. Pogue
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.
- City of El Paso v. Croom Construction Co. (Tex. App. 1993)
- TML Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Pool v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Tex. App. 2004)
- TML Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Pool v. Prudential Insurance Company of America (Tex. App. 2004)
- Rodeheaver v. Steigerwald (Tex. App. 1991)
- TML Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Pool v. Prudential Insurance Company of America (Tex. App. 2004)
- Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District (Tex. App. 2006)
- Bocquet v. Herring (Tex. 1998)
- Texas Education Agency v. Leeper (Tex. 1995)
- Hooten v. Enriquez (Tex. App. 1993)
- James Allen Walker, Jr. v. City of Brady and Richard L. Cory (Tex. App. 1992)
- Doyle v. State (Tex. App. 1989)
- John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas (Tex. App. 2015)
- John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas (Tex. App. 2015)
- Bret Alan Avery v. State (Tex. App. 2010)
- James Hlavinka v. Bessie Hlavinka, Individually and Arnold Hlavinka, as Trustee of Bessie Hlavinka (Tex. App. 2008)
- James Hlavinka v. Bessie Hlavinka, Individually and Arnold Hlavinka, as Trustee of Bessie Hlavinka (Tex. App. 2008)
- Creston H. Funk, Jr. and Annie Mae Funk Carrington v. Devon Louisiana Corp. (Tex. App. 2005)
- Howell v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Tex. App. 2004)
- University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Mata & Bordini, Inc. (Tex. App. 1999)
- City of Holliday v. Wood (Tex. App. 1996)
- City of Lubbock v. Currey Enterprises, Inc., Dba Budget Rent-A-Car (Tex. App. 1994)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Darlene Duncan, a court reporter, sued the Hopkins County Commissioners Court to compel it to fund a ten percent salary increase ordered by the district judge pursuant to Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. § 52.051 (Vernon 1988). The Commissioners Court counter-claimed for relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 37.009 (Vernon 1986). The trial court, with another judge sitting by appointment, granted Duncan’s motion for summary judgment, ordered the Commissioners Court to fund the salary increase, and awarded Duncan attorney fees. The court of appeals reversed that judgment and remanded the cause for trial on the merits. 753 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.App.— Tyler 1988). Because the court of appeals’ decision conflicts with Mays v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 755 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. 1988) and is contrary to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, we grant the application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for further consideration. See Tex.R.App.P. 133(b).
In Mays we held that so long as a district judge’s order of a pay increase was within the ten percent authorized by section 52.051(d) it was presumptively valid. Although it is undisputed in this case that the pay increase was within the statutory ten percent, the court of appeals did not recognize any presumption of validity but instead concluded that Duncan had the burden of establishing that the pay increase was reasonable. This decision conflicts with our own opinion in Mays.
Furthermore, the trial judge acted within his discretion in awarding attorney fees to Duncan. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act expressly provides that “the court may award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.” Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.
*436 Code Ann. § 37.009 (Vernon 1986). The court of appeals’ decision to strike the award of attorney fees is contrary to this statutory authorization.
A majority of the court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the cause to that court for it to consider the Commissioners Court’s other points of error which were not previously addressed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.