.png)
A notice of appeal was filed last month by the third party involved in Elgin’s marijuana-centered lawsuit with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Decriminalize Elgin and Chairperson Courtenay Paris had their petition in intervention struck during the initial June 18 court proceedings. The pleading presents that an order that grants a plaintiff’s motion to strike a defendant-intervenor’s petition is void when the trial court does not first determine it has subject matter jurisdiction.
“I expect it will be several months before we acquire a decision from the Austin Court of Appeals in this case,” Richard Gladden said, Decriminalize Elgin’s representative. “Although it’s possible one will be rendered sooner if this appeal is merged with two other appeals pending.”
Both Killeen and Austin have filed appeals with the court for cases re- lated to this particular subject matter, according to Gladden.
The Supreme Court of Texas has repeatedly ruled that a trial court must determine at its earliest opportunity whether or not it has authority before allowing the litigation to proceed, according to the petition.
The pleading states that “the reason why jurisdictional issues must take precedence over all other issues in a case is because if plaintiffs lack standing to seek orders from a court, the court lacks power to issue those orders.”
Elgin’s case reached its conclusion when the court approved an agreement between the city and state. The consent decree resolved the dispute without admission of guilt or liability, stating that “the parties desire to avoid further litigation and have reached an agreement.”
The filings first stated that the plaintiff did not have constitutional standing under Texas law because the initiative ordinance eliminating low-level marijuana possession offences in the city “never had been, and likely never would be enforced.”
The resolution stipulated that the ordinance is void and that the plaintiff will dismiss the suit.
