Attorney General of Texas v. El Paso Independent Auto. Dealers Ass'n, Inc.

Decision Date02 April 1998
Docket NumberNo. 08-98-00022-CV,08-98-00022-CV
Citation966 S.W.2d 783
PartiesATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation, Jaime Esparza in His Official Capacity as District Attorney for El Paso County and Jose Rodriguez in his Official Capacity as County Attorney for El Paso County, Appellants, v. EL PASO INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Before LARSEN, McCLURE and CHEW, JJ.

OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

Appellee El Paso Independent Automobile Dealers Association, Inc. (EPIADA) originally filed suit against the El Paso District, City, and County Attorneys seeking to enjoin their enforcement of TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 728.001 through 728.004, which make it illegal to sell cars on consecutive weekend days, 1 and to have those statutes declared unconstitutional. EPIADA served a copy of its petition on the Texas Attorney General in accordance with TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 37.006, but the Attorney General declined to participate in the proceeding. At trial, in which the El Paso City Attorney, County Attorney, and District Attorney participated as defendants, EPIADA successfully obtained a judgment declaring the statutes unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement. After unsuccessfully attempting to intervene in the lawsuit after judgment, the Attorney General and the Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation ("Motor Vehicle Division" or the "Division") perfected their appeals. EPIADA has filed a motion to dismiss the Attorney General and the Motor Vehicle Division alleging that since they were not parties of record in the underlying lawsuit, they have no right to appeal the judgment. For the following reasons, we agree and dismiss the Attorney General and the Division from the pending appeal.

Generally, only parties of record may exercise a right of appeal. 2 It is undisputed that the Attorney General and the Motor Vehicle Division were not parties to the underlying suit. They argue, however, that under the doctrine of virtual representation, they are entitled to participate on appeal. A party who did not participate at the trial court and who wishes to participate in the appeal may do so if the party's interests are identical to those of the party or parties who did participate. 3 As Justice Kilgarlin wrote in his concurring opinion in Continental Casualty Company v. Huizar, 4 the doctrine of virtual representation is applicable when the following criteria are met:

1. The party attempting to appeal is bound by the judgment.

2. The party's privity of estate, title or interest appears from the record of the cause in the trial court.

3. There is an identity of interest between the party attempting to appeal and a party to the judgment. 5

The record reflects that the Attorney General, and arguably the Motor Vehicle Division, meet each of the requirements. The judgment and injunction in this case provides,

All officials authorized by TEX. TRANS. CODE § 728.004 to enforce TEX. TRANS. CODE §§ 728.001 through 728.004 are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing the provisions of TEX. TRANS. CODE §§ 728.001 through 728.004 unless the Texas Supreme Court shall subsequently rule that the statutes are constitutional.

Section 728.004 charges the Attorney General, along with the District, County, and City Attorneys of a given county, with enforcement of Sections 728.001 through 728.004. 6 Accordingly, the Attorney General is bound by the judgment. The judgment also declares Sections 728.001 through 728.004 unconstitutional. Since the Motor Vehicle Commission Code authorizes the Motor Vehicle Division to deny, revoke, or suspend the license of any person who violates any law relating to the sale or distribution of motor vehicles, 7 the Division also arguably is bound under the judgment from enforcing its authority on the basis of Section 728.001 through 728.004, sections which relate to the sale and distribution of motor vehicles. These same statutes display the privity and identity of interest between the parties to the suit and the Attorney General and Motor Vehicle Division. Both the Attorney General and the Motor Vehicle Division, like the El Paso District, County, and City Attorneys, have a duty to enforce the challenged sections. In fact, the Attorney General derives enforcement power from the very same statute giving enforcement powers to the parties who participated in this case. 8 Accordingly, it appears that the Attorney General and the Motor Vehicle Division would be entitled to maintain their appeal under the doctrine of virtual representation.

Nevertheless, we find that the right to appeal pursuant to the doctrine may be waived. For example, the Texas Supreme Court found that the non-party insurer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Naylor (In re State)
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2015
    ... 466 S.W.3d 783 State of Texas, Petitioner v. Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly, ... Hodge, First Asst. Attorney General, David C. Mattax, Director of Defense ... of Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, Inc ., 1 S.W.3d 108, ... El Paso Independent Automobile Dealers Ass'n, 22 local officials ... ...
  • Harris County, Tex. v. CarMax Auto Superstores Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 26, 1999
    ... ... 177 F.3d 306 ... HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES ...         Linda B. Secord, Attorney General of Texas, Douglas Burt Fraser, Austin, ...         In 1997, the El Paso Independent Automobile Dealers Association, Inc ... ...
  • State v. Naylor
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 2011
    ... 330 S.W.3d 434 STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Angelique S. NAYLOR and Sabina ... Blacklock, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for State of Texas.James J ... Motor Vehicle Bd. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, 1 S.W.3d 108, 110 ... El Paso Independent Automobile Dealers Ass'n., 1 S.W.3d 108. In El ... Inc. v. McDonald, 810 S.W.2d 887, 890 ... ...
  • Motor Vehicle Bd. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1999
    ... ... 1999) ... MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PETITIONER ... EL ASO INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT ... Although the suit named neither the Attorney General nor its client-agency, the Board, as ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT