TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00686-CV
Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant
v.
City of Dallas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GV-10-000836, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING
DISSENTING OPINION
I respectfully dissent.
I agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the Amarillo Court of Appeals in City
of Dallas v. Abbott, 279 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007), rev’d on other grounds,
304 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2010). There, the court held that the mere fact that requested materials
constitute attorney-client communication is not enough, by itself, to demonstrate a “compelling
reason” to withhold disclosure under section 552.302 of the Government Code. Id. at 810-12. In
the present case, the City presented no evidence whatsoever that a disclosure of the materials would
harm third parties and only vague, speculative evidence that the City itself could be harmed. For all
intents and purposes, the City relied exclusively on the fact that the materials arguably fell within
the attorney-client privilege. I do not believe that is enough. Accordingly, I do not believe the City
met its burden of conclusively showing a “compelling reason” for nondisclosure.
The majority relies on a statement contained in a footnote in City of Garland v. Dallas
Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 360 n.5 (Tex. 2000). But not only was the referenced statement
dictum (as the majority concedes), it was dictum in a plurality opinion. Plurality opinions have
virtually no precedential value. See University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. York,
871 S.W.2d 175, 176-77 (Tex. 1994).
I would reverse the trial court’s judgment.
_____________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Filed: December 23, 2014
2