# City of Alamo v. Montes

> Texas Supreme Court · November 15, 1996 · 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665117

## Case

- **Full name:** The CITY OF ALAMO, Et Al., Petitioners, v. Minerva MONTES, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 15, 1996
- **Citations:** 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 108; 934 S.W.2d 85; 1996 Tex. LEXIS 161; 1996 WL 665628
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Spector, Phillips, Hecht, Cornyn, Enoch, Owen, Baker, Abbott, Gonzalez
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665117

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, because "no live controversy" existed between the parties in wrongful-termination suit following plaintiff's resignation from her position, any opinion Court might issue would be "strictly advisory"

## Opinion text

We granted this cause to consider whether the court of appeals erred in affirming an injunction requiring the City of Alamo to reinstate Minerva Montes to her position as city secretary. 904 S.W.2d 727, 734 . The court of appeals affirmed the injunction based upon the jury’s finding that Montes was fired primarily for political reasons. Id. Montes has now resigned her position. She moves to dismiss this case on the basis that it is moot. We agree that the case is now moot.
Montes’s resignation leaves no live controversy between the parties. See Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home, 847 S.W.2d 227, 228-29 (Tex.1993). Under these circumstances, any opinion we might issue would be strictly advisory. Id. at 229 . Therefore, in accordance with Rule 170 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, without hearing oral argument and without reference to the merits, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and of the trial court and dismiss this case as moot. Id. at 228 . Our disposition of this case should not be construed as either approving or disapproving of the court of appeals’ opinion.
GONZALEZ, J., filed a concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665117. Public record. Not legal advice.