Ken
Paxton
Active
On
Interim
Off
Nepotism statute does not prohibit the superintendent of the Pecos County Memorial Hospital from employing the spouse of the county judge because the county judge has no authority to hire employees of the Hospital
A court would likely determine that the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County intended the expenditure of a portion of the bond proceeds on the Uptown/West Loop 4.4 mile rail segment to be a part of its contract with the voters.|Determination of legality of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County's authority to participate in the Uptown Houston Transit Project involves fact questions and is inappropriate to an attorney general opinion|Bond proceeds approved by the voters in an election can only be used for those projects and cannot be applied to other projects.
The State Board of Education's authority with regard to local textbook adoption must be considered in light of the law that all powers and duties not specifically delegated by statute to the Board are reserved for the trustees of the school districts, and the agency may not substitute its judgment for the lawful exercise of those powers and duties by the trustees of the school districts under Education Code section 11.151.|The State Board of Education has authority to impose an administrative penalty against a publisher for a factual error identified by a school district under Education Code s
Brady v. Maryland and its progeny do not impose a general duty upon a prosecutor to listen to all recordings of inmate telephone calls held by the county telecommunications provider to search for exculpatory evidence for a defendant if the prosecutor would not do so otherwise.|Brady v. Maryland imposes a duty to discover whether the investigators and employees who listen to recorded inmate telephone calls find evidence favorable to a defendant in the recordings and, if so, to disclose that evidence to the defendant.|Brady v.
The community college system must determine, in good faith and subject to review for abuse of discretion, whether the reimbursement expenditure is primarily for a college system purpose and not merely for the trustee's personal interest and that the quo warranto proceeding involved actions taken by the trustee that were within the scope of his official duties.