Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1980 )


Menu:
  •                        The Attorney                General of Texas
    April        3,   1980
    MARK WHITE
    Attorney General
    Honorable Billy Fred Lacy                    Opinion No. Nw-158
    Potter County Auditor
    Courthouse                                   Re: Whether a county is liable for
    Amarillo, Texas 79101                        court costs assessed against the
    district attorney.
    Dear Mr. Lacy:
    You ask whether the commissioners court of Potter County should
    reimburse the district attorney under article 6252-19b, V.T.C.S:, for court
    costs assessed against him by the court of civil appeals. The suit arose out
    of the district attorney’s decision to deny a particular newspaper access to
    official news sources in his office without an appointment.            Other
    newspapers were not subject to the same rule. The paper sued to enjoin this
    practice. In Southwestern Newspapers Corporation v. Curtis, 
    584 S.W.2d 362
                       (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1979, no writ), the court of civil appeals
    reversed the trial court denial of a temporary injunction. See also Curtis v.
    Nobles, 
    588 S.W.2d 687
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1979, no wrn
    court of civil appeals assessed the costs of the appeal against the district
    attorney. He has paid them and now seeks reimbursement from the county.
    You specifically ask whether the following provision enacted by the
    66th Legislature permits the county to pay the costs assessed against the
    district attorney in defense of this suit:
    Section 1. In this Act ‘employee’ includes en
    elected official and any other officer or employee, a
    former officer or employee or their estates, of a
    county, city, town, special purpose district, or any
    other political subdivision of this state.
    Sec. 2. (a) A county, city, town, special purpose
    district, or any other political subdivision of the state
    may pay actual dameges, court costs, and attorney’s
    fees adjudged against its employee, if damages are
    based on an act or omission by the employee in the
    course and scope of his or her employment for such
    political subdivision and if the damages arise out of a
    cause of action for negligence, except a wllful or
    p.    508
    Honorable Billy Fred Lacy    -     Page Two        (~~-158)
    wrongful act or omission or an act or omission constituting         gross
    negligence or for official misconduct.
    Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 744, at 1830, to be codified as V.T.C.S. art. 6252-19b. We note
    initially that this provision permits, but does not require, the political subdivision to pay
    court costs under certain conditions.      Compare V.T.C.S. art. 6252-26 (state shall pay
    actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees). Thus, even if all conditions necessary for
    payment of expenses are present, the county may choose not to pay them.
    In the case you inquire about, at least one prerequisite for reimbursement of the
    district attorney’s court costs is absent. We do not believe the suit arose out of a cause of
    action for negligence.     Rather, it was a suit for a temporary injunction based upon the
    deprivation of a constitutionally    protected right. The decision of the court to grant the
    temporary injunction was not based upon any allegations or proof of negligence on the part
    of the district attorney.       Unlike article 6252-26, V.T.C.S.,    which provides for the
    payment of damages, costs and attorney’s fees adjudged against an officer or employee
    arising out of a cause of action for &privation of a constitutional       right under certain
    circumstances, article 6252-19b, V.T.C.S., contains no such provision and is restricted in
    its scope to negligence actions. Consequently, the recently enacted statute does not allow
    payment of the district attorney’s court costs. You do not inquire about and we do not
    address any other possible bases for reimbursing these costs. See V.T.C.S. art. 332~;
    Attorney General Opinions H-887 (1976); H-544 (1975); Letter AdviGy No. 24 (19731.
    SUMMARY
    Article 6252-l9b, V.T.C.S., does not permit the county to pay court
    costs incurred by the district attorney in defending an injunction
    suit arising out of his intentional restriction on the access of a
    newspaper publisher to official news sources in his office.
    MARK     WHITE
    Attorney General of Texas
    JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    TED L. HARTLEY
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    Prepared by Susan Garrison
    Assistant Attorney General
    p.    509
    Honorable Billy Fred Lacy   -   Page Three    (~~-158)
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    C. Robert Heath, Chairman
    Jim Allison
    David B. Brooks
    Walter Davis
    Susan Garrison
    Rick Gilpin
    Bruce Youngblood
    P.   510
    

Document Info

Docket Number: MW-158

Judges: Mark White

Filed Date: 7/2/1980

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017