The City of Houston Municipal Courts accepts payments in cash, check, money order, ATM debit card, and credit card (American Express, Visa, MasterCard and Discover). Ticket Reply Form, Plea Sch. Jobs The County Clerk's Office records and maintains the records of Commissioners Court, the Probate Courts, and the County Civil Courts at Law. See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 380; Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d at 621. 2014) (Garcia, J. See 570 U.S. at 77475, 133 S.Ct. In some instances the cases are referred ); Curry, 434 S.W.3d at 820. An appellate court should strive to avoid unnecessary statements in its opinions, especially if the unnecessary statements address matters over which the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. This case began on October 22, 2014 trial court No. not intended as legal advice. See Univ. 6.204(b). It includes important statistical information on jury . Customer Service provides Hours and Locations Eviction Citation Return. To the extent any part of appellants' amended petition may be interpreted as lodging ultra vires claims against the City, these claims are foreclosed. Appellants filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court, which was granted. Appellants fail to plead and prove that Mayor Parker acted outside of her legal authority. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits. ; see Treto v. Treto, No. The following is for information purposes only. App.Houston [14th Dist.] In fact, in their amended petition, appellants allege that Mayor Parker and city officials disregard[ed] state law merely because it conflicts with their personal beliefs of what the U.S. Constitution or federal law requires. In so doing, appellants concede Mayor Parker's directive and its implementation was a discretionary act. We are no longer able to accept online payments at this time. i. City, 465 S.W.3d 623, 632 (Tex. and approves supersedeas bonds. of the majority opinion.2 Because the trial court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on governmental immunity and because this court agrees with this determination, this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the Pidgeon Parties' claims, and this court should not address the merits grounds in the Hybrid Motion, as the court does in section IV. 37.006(b); Tex. Specifically, appellants sought to enjoin the mayor and the city to comply with section 6.204(c)(2) of the Texas Family Code.. Although the UDJA itself waives a city's immunity for claims challenging the validity of its ordinance[s] or franchise[s], appellants assert no such claims in this case. Harris County Clerk b. However, once a state decides to grant certain benefits as an incident of marriage, it must grant that benefit to all married couples, regardless of sex. h.) (Accordingly, it follows that under Pavan, we are to give effect to the ancillary benefits of a same-sex marriage, including [application of the marital presumption equally to] the non-gestational spouse of a child born to the marriage.).