text:
TCAA/TML Legal Defense Program: Amicus Briefs and Comments Filed
Recent Federal Fifth Circuit Cases of Interest to Cities
Recent Texas Cases of Interest to Cities
Recent Texas Attorney General Opinions of Interest to Cities
Public School Football Coach Wins Prayer SCOTUS Case
Supreme Court Strikes Down Clean Power Plan
SCOTUS Rules Biden Administration May End Migrant Protection Protocols
SCOTUS Holds Police Officers Can't be Liable For Failing to Mirandize
SCOTUS Strikes Down "Proper Cause" Requirement to Carry a Gun in Public
State and Local Governments Win SCOTUS Sign Case
Boston Loses Third-Party Flag SCOTUS Case
SCOTUS Holds Emotional Distress Damages Aren't Available Under Various Spending Clause Anti-Discrimination Statutes
Supreme Court Holds Censures Don't Violate the First Amendment
Women in Municipal Law: Representing the Texas Municipal League, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, and Beyond
Supreme Court Midterm for Local Governments 2021-22
Supreme Court Midterm for Local Governments 2020-2021
Federal District Court Strikes Down Fort Worth's Prohibition and Exemption Scheme for Materials in the Right-of-Way
Restraining a Person Is a Seizure under the Fourth Amendment
Recent Texas Attorney General Opinions and Ethics Advisory Opinions of Interest to Cities
Recent Texas Attorney General Opinions
City Loses Supreme Court Appellate Costs Case
U.S. Supreme Court to Review Austin Billboard Case
Supreme Court Review for Local Governments 2020-2021
Texas Joins $21 Billion Opioid Settlement
Supreme Court Preview for Local Governments 2021-2022
TCAA/TML Legal Defense Program: Amicus Briefs Comments Filed
Recent Texas Attorney General Opinion and Ethics Advisory Opinion of Interest to Cities
2014 – 2023 Newsletters
TCAA Website
Note: Included cases are primarily from October 11, 2018 through November 10, 2018.
Public Information Act: City of Houston v. Dolcefino Commc'ns, LLC, No. 01-17-00979-CV, 2018 WL 5539447 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 30, 2018) (mem. op.). The City of Houston appealed the trial court's grant of a motion to compel in a mandamus proceeding under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). Dolcefino brought a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to have the trial court conduct an in camera review of the responsive documents from a PIA request that the city claimed were exempt from disclosure. Dolcefino filed a motion to compel, claiming that the city had not produced documents under the PIA from a request almost four months earlier. At the hearing, the city's attorneys represented that not all of the documents were produced yet but had previously represented it had complied in its filings with the court. The trial court granted the motion to compel and ordered the city to produce the documents that were not being withheld, produce the withheld documents to the court for in camera review, and state in writing that it had complied with the initial and subsequent PIA requests.
The city appealed and invoked the appellate court's jurisdiction under the theory the trial court's order was an injunction, or in the alternative, the city was entitled to a writ of mandamus. The issue before the First Court of Appeals was whether the order was an injunction, thus granting the court jurisdiction over the city's appeal. The First Court of Appeals determined the order requiring the city to perform an action did not rise to the level of an injunction; rather, the order attempted to clarify if the city had complied with the PIA requests because the city had given conflicting information on whether it had complied. The order further narrowed the issues in dispute. Because the order was not an injunction, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the city's appeal. The court further determined that the record would not support a writ of mandamus. Thus, the city's appeal was dismissed.
Texas Tort Claims Act: City of Killeen v. Cheney, No. 03-18-00139-CV, 2018 WL 5832088 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 8, 2018) (mem. op.). This case arises from an order of the trial court denying the City of Killeen's plea to the jurisdiction in an automobile accident.
When a particular interchange was first opened to the public, the city was unable to obtain certain parts necessary for the installation and operation of additional traffic detection cameras. As a result, the city initially placed the traffic signals at the interchange into a four-phase signal operation. At a later date, the city reprogrammed the four-phase traffic signal operation to a three-phase signal operation. Mary Cheney's husband was subsequently killed in an automobile accident at the interchange after allegedly assuming (based on prior experience) that there would be a "green light" at a second intersection because there had been a "green light" at the first intersection. Six days later, after several additional accidents occurred at the second intersection, the city erected a sign warning motorists to use caution because of the traffic signal timing change.
Cheney sued the city, asserting that: (1) the reprogramming of the traffic signals created an unreasonably dangerous condition for motorists based on their prior experiences at the interchange, and that the city had actual knowledge that implementing drastic change to the signals' programming with no advance warning would likely cause traffic fatalities; (2) the city was negligent by reprogramming the signal at a peak period on a high-volume traffic weekday; and (3) the city's governmental immunity was waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act because a negligent premises-defect claim had been sufficiently alleged. The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction and asserted governmental immunity. The trial court denied the city's plea to the jurisdiction, and the city appealed.
First, the court considered whether the city's immunity was waived with respect to claims arising from the "absence, condition, or malfunction" of a traffic signal. The court concluded that Cheney's claim did not arise from the absence, condition or malfunction of a traffic signal.
The court then considered whether Cheney pled facts demonstrating a premise-defect claim, and if so, whether that premise-defect claim was excepted from waiver, and thus immunity retained under the discretionary-function exception. To prevail on a premise-defect claim, a claimant must show that the city failed to either: (1) use ordinary care to warn of an unreasonably dangerous condition of which it was actually aware and the claimant was not; or (2) make the condition reasonably safe. The court found that: (1) the traffic signals at the intersection accurately reflected the signal under a four-phase signal operation, and therefore, there was no "condition" for the city to correct; and (2) any possible danger at the intersection created by the city's decision to reprogram the signals would be negated by motorists' compliance with the signals. Accordingly, the court concluded that the change in the traffic signals at the interchange does not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition under premise-defect law, such that the city had a duty to warn motorists, regardless of when or how the change was implemented.
Expedited Declaratory Judgments Act: Ex parte City of El Paso, No. 03-17-00566-CV, 2018 WL 5815098 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 7, 2018). This appeal stems from a bond-validating proceeding in which the trial court validated the bond election, the bonds, and the City of El Paso's authority to use bond proceeds to finance the design and construction of various projects, but limited the city's authority to use bond proceeds to build a facility "suitable for a sports arena."
The city adopted an ordinance ordering an election on a proposed bond issue for various "quality of life" projects, including a "multipurpose performing arts and entertainment facility" (Facility). The bond was approved by the voters. The city thereafter, began to take steps to create the Facility and proposed the development and construction of a "Multipurpose Cultural and Performing Arts Center" describing the project as a "mid-sized arena anticipated to have between 12,000 and 15,000 seats," and noting that it was the city's intent to build an arena that provides a flexible and usable sports and entertainment venue for the public.
To preemptively combat potential opposition to the Facility, the city filed a suit in Travis County under Chapter 1205 of the Government Code (commonly referred to as the Expedited Declaratory Judgements Act (EDJA)), which allows the issuer of public securities to obtain declarations establishing the legality or validity of public security authorizations through an expedited process. The city asked the trial court to declare that the Facility could be used for sporting events. Multiple interested parties challenged the city's suit, claiming that the language of the ordinance authorized the facility for "performing arts," and that sports do not fall under this description. The trial court held that, while the ordinance was valid and the city was authorized to use bonds to finance the Facility, the plain language of the ordinance prohibited the city from constructing a facility that would be "suitable for a sports arena" and from using funds from other sources to modify the Facility for sports usage.
Near the end of the trial court's proceedings, Max Grossman, an interested party, sued the city in a separate proceeding in El Paso County (EL Paso suit) alleging that the city's plans for construction of the Facility were in violation of the Antiquities Code provision requiring notice to the Texas Historical Commission before ground is broken on a project taking place on state or local public land. The city asked the trial court in the underlying case to enjoin the El Paso suit under the EDJA or the court's equitable power to issue an anti-suit injunction. The trial court held that the El Paso suit was proper in El Paso County and the trial court's final judgement did not adjudicate or affect the claims asserted in the El Paso suit. The city and Grossman filed motions to modify the judgement, but the district court denied the motions. Grossman had asked the trial court to modify its judgement arguing that the election ordinance mandated that the city build a cultural center before it could build the Facility. The city and Grossman appealed.
The court of appeals concluded that under a plain-meaning review of the ordinance, the city may use bond proceeds to build a Facility that accommodates sports. The court of appeals also found that the trial court's declaration that the city could not use funds from other sources to modify the Facility for sports usage exceeded the limited scope of the district court's authority in an EDJA suit. Finally, the court found that the trial court erred in its failure to enjoin the El Paso suit because the purpose of the EDJA is to prevent a single individual from stopping an entire bond issue by simply filing suit, and the El Paso suit prevented final resolution of the city's EDJA suit.
Board of Adjustment: City of Wimberley Bd. of Adjustment v. Creekhaven, LLC, No. 03-18-00169-CV, 2018 WL 5074580 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 18, 2018) (mem. op.). This appeal stems from the trial court's denial of a plea of jurisdiction filed by the City of Wimberley Board of Adjustment (Board) in a case involving a request for a variance.
Alison Campbell owns property that is adjacent to property that is owned by Creekhaven, LLC (Creekhaven). Beginning around 2003, Campbell began constructing a pole barn on her property, which led to various disputes between her and Creekhaven regarding the location and features of the structure. Campbell requested, from the Board, a variance from the setback requirements of the city's ordinances on the east side of the pole barn. In October 2013, the Board granted Campbell's request for a variance on the condition that Campbell provide the city with evidence that the property was in compliance with all other applicable city ordinances, rules and regulations on or before March 1, 2014 (October 2013 Variance). Failure to comply with the condition would result in the variance automatically expiring. The Board also affirmed a decision by the city administrator that an ordinance specifying setback requirements for "alley easements" did not apply to Campbell's pole barn. In November 2013, Creekhaven filed suit for judicial review of both the Board's variance decision and the decision affirming the administrative determination. The trial court granted a writ of certiorari directing the Board to submit its briefing related to the challenged decisions. The Board filed documents in response to the writ in April 2014.
In the meantime, the deadline to comply with the October 2013 Variance decision expired without Campbell satisfying the required condition. Campbell continued to work on her property and in late 2014 sought variances from the setback requirements on both the east and the west side of the pole barn on her property. The Board, after conducting a hearing, granted with conditions, both requested variances in September 2014 (September 2014 Variances). Creekhaven filed a second amended petition to its judicial review, adding challenges to the September 2014 Variances, and seeking a declaration that the October 2013 Variance had expired and was no longer in force and effect. Creekhaven asserted that the Board did not have the authority or jurisdiction to act on Campbell's September 2014 variance request because of the doctrine of "res judicata." The trial court granted a writ of certiorari directing the Board to submit its briefing related to the September 2014 Variances. The Board filed a response in March 2015.
In January 2018, the Board filed a motion for summary judgement arguing that: (1) it did not abuse its discretion in granting the city's administrator's decision regarding the applicability of the "alley easement" ordinance; (2) it did not abuse its discretion when it approved the September 2014 Variances; and (3) it conceded with Creekhaven's finding, on a different reasoning, that the October 2013 Variance was moot. In turn, Creekhaven filed a motion for partial summary judgement on its Uniform Declaratory Judgement Act (UDJA) claims. While the summary-judgement motion was pending, the Board filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Creekhaven's UDJA claims based on governmental immunity, the doctrine of redundant remedies, and mootness. The same day, Creekhaven amended its petition dropping its challenge to the Board's September 2014 grant of a variance on the west side of Campbell's property. The trial court denied Creekhaven's motion for partial summary judgement, the Board's motion for summary judgement, and the Board's plea to the jurisdiction. The Board then filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction.
The court of appeals first considered whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Creekhaven's claims for declaratory relief under the UDJA regarding: (1) the legal effect of the October 2013 Variance; and (2) the Board's decision to grant the September 2014 Variances. The court found that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over these claims because they did not constitute a request for a declaration concerning the validity of any city ordinance such that the Board's immunity is waived. Rather, the court found that the claim constituted a request for a declaration construing a statute or ordinance. The court also considered Creekhaven's claim for declaratory relief regarding the Board's authority to grant the September 2014 Variances. The court held that Creekhaven's appeal of the October 2013 Variance did not deprive the Board of authority to consider Campbell's request for a variance in September 2014.
The court then considered Creekhaven's claim that the Board acted without authority because the doctrine of res judicata barred the Board from acting on Campbell's September 2014 request for a variance on the east side of her property. The court found that the doctrine was inapplicable in this case because it is an affirmative defense. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Creekhaven's challenge to the legality of the October 2013 Variance because that issue is moot. As a result, the court reversed the trial court's order denying the Board's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Creekhaven's UDJA claims and its suit for judicial review of the October 2013 Variance.
Workers' Compensation: Martinez v. State Office of Risk Mgmt., No. 04-14-00558-CV, 2018 WL 5808333 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 7, 2018). This case arises from a Texas Supreme Court ruling reversing the court of appeals judgment in part, and remanding the case to the court to consider the merits of Edna Martinez's workers' compensation claims.
Martinez was employed as a caseworker for the State of Texas, and was at her home preparing for court hearings for the following Monday when she slipped and fell, breaking her shoulder and striking her head during the fall. She reported her injury and submitted her claim for workers' compensation benefits to the State Office of Risk Management (SORM), the claim administrator for state-agency employees. Her claim was denied by SORM on the grounds that she had not been injured in the course and scope of her employment, was not engaged in the furtherance of her employer's business at the time of the injury, and had not established a causal connection between her injuries and her employment. At a benefit review conference, SORM argued that Martinez's injuries were not compensable because she had not received prior approval to work from home in violation of her employer's policy. Martinez argued that caseworkers like her often took work from home without prior approval. At a contested hearing, the hearing officer concluded that Martinez was furthering the business and affairs of her employer at the time of her fall, but that her injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course and scope of her employment. As a result, the hearing officer ruled in favor of SORM, holding that Martinez had not sustained a compensable injury. Martinez appealed to the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Appeals Panel (Panel). The Panel reversed the hearing officer's decision, finding that Martinez had sustained a compensable injury.
SORM then appealed to the district court, and both parties moved for summary judgement. In her motion, Martinez argued that a violation of an employer's policy or rule that merely regulates the manner of doing work does not, as a matter of law, preclude compensability for an injury otherwise sustained in the course and scope of employment. SORM argued that Martinez's injuries were not compensable because she had violated state law, which limits the locations where work can be performed and explicitly prohibits working from home without prior approval. The district court denied Martinez's motion for summary judgement and granted SORM's motion for summary judgement. Martinez appealed.
The court of appeals found that the trial court had erred in granting SORM's motion for summary judgement because SORM's statutory violations argument was never presented for consideration in the administrative review process, and as such, the trial court lacked summary judgement. Finding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the statutory violations, the court of appeals declined to reach a decision on whether the statutory violations affected the compensability of Martinez's injury. The court further held that the trial court did not err in denying Martinez's motion for summary judgement. Both Martinez and SORM sought review of the court of appeal's decision at the supreme court. The supreme court remanded the case to the court of appeal's to determine whether the statutory violation is evidence that Martinez did not sustain a compensable injury.
The court of appeals considered the plain language of the statutes to determine whether the statutes limit the scope of Martinez's employment. The court concluded that the statutes limit a state employee's scope of employment by mandating that the employee obtain prior written authorization before working at home. Because Martinez did not obtain prior approval before working from home, she did not comply with the statutes. As a result, she did not sustain a compensable injury. Accordingly, the court found that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgement in SORM's favor.
Contractual Immunity: CHW-Lattas Creek, L.P. v. City of Alice, No. 04-18-00251-CV, 2018 WL 5623614 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 31, 2018). This appeal arises from the trial court's order granting the City of Alice's plea to the jurisdiction in a case involving a Chapter 380 economic development agreement.
The city and CHW-Lattas Creek, L.P. (CHW) entered into a Chapter 380 development agreement whereby CHW agreed to sell and dedicate specific real property to the city. The city, in turn, agreed to construct a multi-use complex, including an outdoor amphitheater, an aquatic center, and a conference center, and facilitate the construction of a hotel on the property. The development agreement contained a provision making the agreement subject to the requirements of Chapter 271 of the Local Government, and specifically providing that the parties have "entered into a written contract for providing goods and services." The agreement also contained a provision in which the city expressly waived sovereign immunity to suit for purpose of adjudicating a claim for breach of contract.
Four years after the effective date of the agreement, CHW sued the city for failing to fulfill certain requirements of the agreement alleging breach of contract, declaratory relief, and fraud. The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting immunity from suit because: (1) the agreement was not a contract for providing goods and services to the city as required for immunity to be waived under Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code for a breach of contract claim; (2) Section 271.152 does not waive immunity for a claim for declaratory relief; and (3) the fraud claim is an intentional tort for which immunity is not waived. CHW asserted that immunity was waived because: (1) the agreement was a contract for services; (2) the city was engaged in proprietary functions in execution of the agreement; and (3) the city was estopped from claiming its immunity was waived. The trial court granted the city's plea and dismissed CHW's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court of appeals first considered whether the city was engaged in a governmental or proprietary function when it entered the agreement. One of the governmental functions enumerated by the Texas Tort Claims Act (Act) is "community development or urban renewal activities undertaken by municipalities and authorized under Chapters 373 and 374, Local Government Code." The court looked to the legislative intent of the legislation that amended the Act to add that provision, and concluded that the amendment extends to all community development activities regardless of which chapter of the Local Government Code applies. As a result, the court concluded that because the purpose of the development agreement was to promote economic development under Chapter 380 of the Local Government Code, the city was engaged in a governmental function when it entered into the agreement.
The court then considered whether the city's immunity was waived under Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code. Section 271.152 applies only to written contracts for providing goods and services to a local governmental entity. Because the development agreement did not obligate or require CHW to provide any services to the city, and the city did not agree to pay CHW for any services, the court concluded that the agreement was not an agreement for providing services to the city. Consequently, the city's immunity was not waived under the development agreement.
The court then addressed CHW's assertion that courts have no authority to interfere with a city's exercise of its legislative direction because the development agreement involves municipal legislative discretion. The court looked to case law involving the adoption of ordinances or zoning regulations by a municipality and distinguished those actions from the execution of a contract. As a result, the court found that the law relating to the exercise of municipal legislative discretion did not apply to the execution of the development agreement.
Finally, the court considered CHW's argument that the city was estopped from asserting immunity or denying its waiver because the language in the development agreement expressly provided that the agreement was subject to Chapter 271 and the city expressly waived sovereign immunity. The court held that the city should not be estopped from asserting its immunity based on the "mistake, neglect, or intentional act," of city officials. Instead, parties who enter into an agreement with a local governmental entity should be charged with the law regarding the entity's immunity and enter into an agreement at the parties' own peril.
Contractual Immunity: Harlandale Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Jasmine Eng'g, Inc., No. 04-18-00388-CV, 2018 WL 5623612 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 31, 2018) (mem. op.). This appeal arises from the trial court's denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a case involving a breach of contract.
Jasmine Engineering and the Harlandale Independent School District entered into a professional services agreement for consulting services. In a letter dated January 24, 2018, the district informed Jasmine Engineering that the agreement was terminated without cause. In February 2018, Jasmine Engineering sued the district asserting: (1) a cause of action because the agreement required cause to terminate; (2) the district's immunity was waived under Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code; and (3) a declaratory judgement. In addition, Jasmine Engineering sought to recover attorney's fees under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Section 271.153 of the Local Government Code.
The district filed its first plea to the jurisdiction acknowledging its immunity from suit was waived under Section 271.152. However, the district asserted that its immunity was waived only for relief recoverable under Section 271.153, which did not include declaratory relief or attorney's fees under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Jasmine Engineering countered with an assertion that the declaratory relief it sought was incidental to the contractual relief it sought. The trial court granted the district's plea and dismissed Jasmine Engineering's claim for declaratory relief and attorney's fees. The trial court also ordered Jasmine Engineering to replead its claim for breach of contract to expressly comply with Sections 271.152 and 271.153 of the Local Government Code. In response, Jasmine filed its amended petition alleging only a breach of contract claim and a request for attorney's fees under Section 271.152 and 271.153 of the Local Government Code. Jasmine Engineering filed a motion for partial summary judgement as to liability, requesting that the trial court conclude as a matter of law that the district had breached the agreement by terminating the agreement without notice and an opportunity to cure, and by failing to pay Jasmine Engineering for all services actually performed and all expenses actually incurred prior to the termination. The district filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting that Jasmine Engineering's motion for summary judgement sought the same declaratory relief that the trial court had dismissed when it granted the district's first plea. Jasmine Engineering filed a reply asserting that it was not precluded by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure from seeking a partial summary judgement as to liability. The trial court denied the district's second plea, and the district filed an interlocutory appeal.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order, rejecting the district's contention that a motion for partial summary judgment on liability is an improper procedural vehicle for determining the District's liability for breach of contract claim.
Pre-suit Deposition: In re City of Dallas v. Dallas Companion Animal Project, No. 05-18-00453-CV, 2018 WL 5306943 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26, 2018) (mem. op.). This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order denying the City of Dallas' plea to the jurisdiction in a case involving a pre-suit deposition suit pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.
The Dallas Companion Animal Project (DCAP) provided goods and services to the City of Dallas Department of Animal Services (DAS) for a number of years. In December 2016, the head of DAS was replaced, and DCAP was informed by the city that there were questions regarding its activities. The city requested DCAP provided certain financial information, which they did. The city also informed DCAP that a memorandum of understanding would be required before DCAP could continue its services to the DAS. In February 2017, a reporter told DCAP that there was a purported criminal investigation into DCAP's activities. DCAP repeatedly attempted to obtain information from the city of the alleged investigations, culminating in a December 2017 letter to the city manager requesting information about the status of the alleged investigation. After the city failed to respond, DCAP filed a Rule 202 petition seeking authorization to depose a representative of the city about the existence, focus, and current status of the investigation.
The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the Rule 202 petition because DCAP failed to allege facts demonstrating a potential injury caused by the city's action that would constitute a claim that was not barred by governmental immunity. The trial court denied the city's plea. The city did not file an interlocutory appeal of the ruling; rather, it filed a second plea to the jurisdiction arguing that, to the extent that DCAP intended to assert claims against employees of the city, those employees were entitled to dismissal of the claims under Section 101.106(f) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the city had not waived immunity for those claims. DCAP filed an amended Rule 202 petition alleging, among other things, possible viable claims against: (1) the city for negligence and negligent defamation; and (2) city employees acting in their individual capacities or acting ultra vires. The trial court denied the city's second plea.
The city filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of the second plea arguing that because the amended Rule 202 petition was a final order, it was appealing not only that order, but the trial court's orders denying both pleas, and, alternatively, it was bringing an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction. The city also filed a writ of mandamus contending that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the city to submit to a pre-suit deposition and the city did not have an adequate appellate remedy.
The court of appeals concluded that DCAP was seeking, in part, to investigate potential claims against the city, and the trial court's order granting DCAP's amended Rule 202 petition is not final and appealable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the city appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court further denied the city's petition for writ of mandamus because DCAP alleged sufficient facts to establish the trial court had jurisdiction over the amended Rule 202 petition and the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion by determining the benefit of the ordered deposition outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure. The court also dismissed the city's interlocutory appeal as moot.
Pre-suit Deposition: In re City of Dallas v. Russell, No. 05-18-00289-CV, 2018 WL 5306925 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26, 2018) (mem. op.). This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order denying the City of Dallas' plea to the jurisdiction in a case involving a pre-suit deposition pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.
Heather Russell filed a petition for Rule 202 depositions to investigate Section 1983 claims related the shooting and death of her son by a City of Dallas police officer. She sought authorization to depose the police officer and issue a subpoena duces tecum to the city and the Dallas County Medical Examiner (Medical Examiner). Russell filed her petition after she was unable to obtain the records through the Texas Public Information Act. The city and the police officer filed a plea to the jurisdiction, and the Medical Examiner filed a separate response. The trial court issued an order that: (1) denied the city and the police officer's plea to the jurisdiction; (2) found the likely benefit of allowing Russell to take the requested depositions outweigh the burden or expense of the procedure; (3) granted the Rule 202 petition as to the city and the Medical Examiner, but not to the officer; and (4) ordered, Russell and her counsel, to refrain from discussing or disclosing to anyone information obtained through the taking of the deposition until the earlier of either a grand jury determination to indict the officer or further order of the trial court. The city filed a petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, an appeal to the trial court's order granting the Rule 202 petition, and an interlocutory appeal arguing that the trial court erred when it denied the city's plea to the jurisdiction.
The court of appeals first considered the appropriate remedy available to the city. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy for the city is a petition for writ of mandamus. As a result, the court dismissed the city's interlocutory appeal.
The court then considered whether the city was entitled to mandamus relief. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a realtor must show: (1) the trial court has clearly abused its discretion; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by appeal. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion because Russell failed to adequately plead a specific cause of action as required by Rule 202.2 or to state with sufficient specificity a basis for overcoming governmental immunity. The court also found that the city had no adequate remedy for appeal because the city's only opportunity to appeal the trial court's order would be after the deposition with subpoena duces tecum occurred, which would compromise the city's procedural and substantive rights. As a result, the court granted the city's petition for writ of mandamus. Having ruled on the merits of the city's writ of mandamus, the court found no need to address the city's appeal of the trial court's order denying the city's plea to the jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure: Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney's Office, No. 05-17-00847-CV, 2018 WL 5077795 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 18, 2018) (mem. op.). This appeal arises from the trial court's order granting the Dallas City Attorney's Office's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Petrina Thompson's claims with prejudice.
Thompson, a former employee of the City of Dallas' City Attorney's Office (City Attorney Office), filed a complaint against the City Attorney Office with the Texas Workforce Commission alleging employment discrimination. On October 26, 2016, the commission informed Thompson that it was unable to conclude that a statutory violation had occurred and advised her that she had until December 25, 2016, to file suit on her claims. Thompson timely filed her suit against the City Attorney Office on December 8, 2016, but did not identify a person to be served. As result, the City Attorney Office was not served until December 25. Thompson filed an amended petition, again listing "Dallas City Attorney's Office," as the defendant, and that the defendant could be served though service on the city attorney and the mayor. The city attorney and the mayor were served on January 6, 2017.
The City Attorney Office filed an answer asserting a general denial and several affirmative defenses, including that Thompson's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The City Attorney Office later filed a supplement to its answer asserting that Thompson's claims were barred by defect of parties because Thompson had sued the City Attorney Office, a department within the City of Dallas, which is a non-jural entity that has no legal capacity to be sued. Thompson did not amend her petition to allege suit against the City of Dallas, and did not file a response to the motion for summary judgement. The trial court held a hearing (at which Thompson did not appear) and eventually signed a final judgement granting the City Attorney Office's motion for summary judgement and ordering Thompson's claims dismissed with prejudice. Thompson filed a motion to reinstate under Rule 165a of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for reinstatement of a case that has been dismissed for want of prosecution. She also filed a motion for a new trial arguing that trial court should have denied the motion for summary judgement and the disposition of the case should have been without prejudice. She also filed a motion for leave to file a response to the summary judgment and to correct or reform the judgement. The trial denied the motions. Thompson appealed the trial court's judgement arguing that the trial court erred (1) by denying her motion for a new trial because she satisfied the requirements of Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines; (2) by denying her motion for a new trial on the grounds that she misnamed the defendant; (3) by denying her motion to reinstate; and (4) by denying her motion to modify the judgement.
The court of appeals first considered Thompson's motions for a new trial under the provisions of Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines. Under Craddock, a motion for a new trial shall be granted in any case in which: (1) the failure to answer before judgement was not intentional, or the result of conscious indifference, but was due to a mistake or accident; (2) the motion for a new trial sets up a meritorious defense; and (3) the motion is filed at a time when the granting thereof will occasion no delay or otherwise work an injury. The court found that Thompson's motions did not satisfy the second and third elements of Craddock. Therefore, she failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a new trial.
The court then considered her motion to reinstate under Rule 165a, which governs dismissals for want of prosecution. The court concluded that Rule 165a does not apply in this case because the trial court did not dismiss the case for want of prosecution. Instead, the trial court granted the City Attorney Office's motion for summary judgement, and dismissed Thompson's claims. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Thompson's motion to reinstate.
Finally, the court considered Thompson's motion to modify the judgement under Rule 329b, which provides that the judgement must be filed within the time for a filing a motion for a new trial, which is 30 days from the date the trial court signs the judgement. Thompson filed her motion 69 days after the trial court signed its judgement. As a result, the court may not review the trial court's decision to deny the motion.
Texas Recreational Use Statute: City of Conroe v. Thomas, No. 09-18-00215-CV, 2018 WL 4924849 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 11, 2018) (mem. op.). The Ninth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the City of Conroe's plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that the appellants failed to prove gross negligence under the Recreational Use Statute, and dismissed the appellants' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellants (on behalf of an injured minor) sued the city for negligence under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 75 (the Recreational Use Statute), claiming that at a summer day camp operated by the city, a camp supervisor negligently caused the minor's eye injury during the course of his employment. While facilitating recreational activities inside of a classroom, the counselor swung a makeshift baseball bat and struck the minor, causing him to lose sight in his left eye. The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting that appellants' claims must fail because, under the Recreational Use Statute, the city does not owe a person engaged in recreation on its premises any more care than a trespasser would be owed. The city claimed that it only owed the minor a duty to not injure him by gross negligence, and that the appellants did not prove that the city was grossly negligent because the city never parted from an ordinary standard of care as to create an extreme risk of harm. The city, therefore, argued that it retained government immunity under the statute. Appellants filed an amended petition that included a gross negligence claim, and also claimed that the case did not fall under the Recreational Use Statute because the city's summer camp did not satisfy the statute's definition of "camping" and that playing baseball inside of a classroom did not fall under the statute's definition of "recreation." Appellants argued that the city therefore did not retain governmental immunity and could be tried on the negligence and the gross negligence theories. The trial court denied the city's plea to the jurisdiction, and held that, because the city's activity did not fall under the Recreational Use Statute, the city could be tried for the negligence claims.
Under the Recreational Use Statute, "recreation" is defined as "any activity associated with enjoying nature and the outdoors." The statute does apply to informal ball games, and just because the game was moved indoors due to inclement weather does not mean that the game was not associated with the outdoors. Therefore, the informal baseball game played in an indoor classroom at the city's summer camp did fall under the Recreational Use Statute, and the statute does apply to appellants' claims. Thus, the city only owed the injured minor the care that a trespasser would be owed. This only encompasses a duty "not to injure a person willfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence," and gross negligence is only satisfied by "subjective awareness of an extreme degree of risk, indicating conscious indifference" to the safety of others. Appellants failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of gross negligence because they did not allege any acts or omissions that showed the city's indifference to the consequences of a known extreme risk of danger. Appellants' claim failed under the Recreational Use Statute and the city retained its governmental immunity.
Texas Tort Claims Act: City of Fort Worth v. Hart, No. 10-17-00258-CV, 2018 WL 4925810 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 10, 2018) (mem. op.). The Tenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the City of Fort Worth's plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that the appellee's objections to the city's evidence were improperly sustained and that the appellee failed to show that the city's employee was acting in the scope of his duties at the time of the accident.
A City of Fort Worth police officer (while operating a city-owned vehicle) was involved in an accident with a car in which Jeff Hart's son was riding. Hart's son was injured and he sued for damages on behalf of his son. The city entered a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming that Hart had failed to demonstrate the police officer was acting in the scope of his employment duties at the time of the accident. The trial court sustained objections to the city's evidence and exhibits, and denied the city's plea to the jurisdiction under the Texas Tort Claims Act because there was a fact issue as to whether the officer was acting within the course and scope of his duties.
The Tenth Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court erred. The trial court incorrectly held that the officer's deposition was hearsay; statements made during a deposition cannot count as hearsay. The trial court incorrectly held that the excerpts of the officer's deposition were improperly authenticated because deposition excerpts do not have to be separately authenticated. Finally, the trial court abused its discretion by holding that the excerpts were "altered" simply because they were highlighted; the highlighting did not modify the evidence or make the evidence substantively different. Moreover, the trial court improperly held that there was a fact issue as to whether the officer was acting within the scope of his employment duties. Because the excerpts of the officer's deposition should have been admitted and are sufficient to support the city's governmental immunity, Hart could only sue the city under the immunity waiver portion of the Texas Torts Claims Act if the officer was acting within his "scope of employment."
At the time of the accident, the officer was employed by the city and was driving a vehicle that was both owned and fully maintained by the city. The accident occurred during the officer's usual work hours, he identified himself to the 911 operator using his job title, and he called his supervisor to advise him of the incident. However, in order to be "acting within the scope" of his employment under the Texas Tort Claims Act, the officer's actions must have been "undertaken in furtherance of his employer's business." While there is a presumption that an employee was furthering his employer's business if he was driving his employer's vehicle, the city rebutted that presumption in this case. The city presented evidence that at the time of the accident, the officer was off-duty, not being paid for his time, and had no official duties. None of the circumstances surrounding the accident raised a sufficient fact issues as to whether the officer was within the scope of his employment. Therefore, because there was no fact issue, the city's immunity was not waived, and appellee's claims must fail due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Contract Claims Act: City of Merkel v. Copeland, No. 11-16-00323-CV, 2018 WL 5074551 (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 18, 2018). The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the City of Merkel's plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that the city did not waive its governmental immunity under the language of the Contract Claims Act at the time of the execution of its contract with appellees.
The owners of a country club contracted with the city to purchase treated wastewater to irrigate the country club's golf course. Under the terms of the contract, the country club owners agreed to accept 100% of the city's treated wastewater and to pay $1.50 per 100,000 gallons of wastewater delivered by the city. The city agreed to deliver the wastewater to the country club from its wastewater treatment plant. Appellees later purchased the country club and became successors in interest to the contract. Appellees and the city both fulfilled their obligations under the contract for multiple years. However, the contract was subject to state wastewater quality standards, and the city halted its delivery of wastewater to the country club in 2014 because the water did not meet the minimum quality standards. Appellees sued the city for breach of contract, and the city filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity. Appellees claimed that the immunity did not apply because the city's sale of wastewater represented a proprietary function rather than a governmental function. Appellees also claimed that the city had waived its immunity under the Contract Claims Act by entering into the contract. The city responded that the contract at issue was not subject to the Contract Claims Act, and that appellees had not sought the type of damages for which immunity is waived under the Act.
Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, "sanitary and storm sewers," "waterworks," and "water and sewer service" are included within the definition of "governmental functions." The disposal of treated wastewater is necessary and essential to the city's operation of its wastewater treatment facility. The city provided a key governmental service by disposing of treated waste. Therefore, the city did exercise a governmental function (and not a proprietary function) when it contracted to sell wastewater to appellees. Moreover, under the Contract Claims Act, a city waives its governmental immunity when it enters a contract to sell reclaimed water intended for industrial use. However, this language in the Contract Claims Act was included in 2013; the contract in this case was executed in 2011, when immunity was only waived for contracts that provided goods and services to a city. The appellees did not provide any services to the city under the contract in this case. Therefore, the contract in this case was not subject to the Contract Claims Act, and the city did not waive its governmental immunity. Appellees claim failed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and was dismissed.
Takings: City of South Padre Island v. La Concha Condominium Ass'n, No. 13-18-00037-CV, 2018 WL 5289720 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 25, 2018) (mem. op.). The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the City of South Padre Island's plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that the Uniform Condominium Act authorizes condominium associations to sue on behalf of individual unit owners. The court held that La Concha Condominium Association has standing to assert its takings claims on behalf of its individual condominium owners.
The La Concha Condominium Association represented the individual owners of a condominium complex, and the City of South Padre Island erected a wooden walkway on city-owned land adjacent to the complex. The association and its owners sued the city, asserting that construction of the walkway constituted an unlawful taking and inverse condemnation without due process. The city filed a motion to dismiss the suit, claiming that the association lacked standing to bring suit. The association responded that it had authority to sue under the Uniform Condominium Act (which allows condominium owners' associations to sue on behalf of multiple owners) and the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (which allows property owners to bring takings claims against government entities). The city argued that the association did not have standing to bring takings claims on behalf of condominium owners for individual units that it did not own, as the association did not own legal or equitable title over any of the subject property. The trial court denied the city's motion to dismiss, and the city appealed.
Condominium associations are specifically authorized by Section 82.102 of the Uniform Condominium Act to sue on behalf of personally-aggrieved individual unit owners, even when the association itself is not personally aggrieved. The La Concha Condominium Association consistently identified itself as a condominium association throughout litigation, and Section 82.102 applies to all Texas condominium regimes. Additionally, Section 82.007 of the Uniform Condominium Act and article 6 of the association's bylaws (which allow the association to litigate the "common elements" of the condominium) do not purport to restrict the manner in which the association can bring suit on behalf of its owners and do not limit the legal rights of the association. Moreover, the association asserts that all of its owners were in agreement to pursue the case and authorized the association to prosecute the suit under Section 82.102, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the association has standing to bring the suit. This standing is not overridden by governmental immunity because the Texas Constitution waives governmental immunity for the taking, damaging, or destruction of property for public use. The city's issues were overruled, and the denial of its appeal to the jurisdiction was affirmed.
*Indicates case summaries taken largely from the work of the Law Offices of Ryan Henry, PLLC, and reprinted with permission from Ryan Henry. To sign up for the firm's blog, go to www.rshlawfirm.com.
Municipal Attorney Job Openings
For the most recent Texas Municipal League classifieds postings, click here.
TCAA Listserv
Need an easy way to reach out to other municipal attorneys and tap into their experience and expertise? Join the listserv by going to www.texascityattorneys.org.
Listserv is a Web-based communication system that is intended to facilitate the direct exchange of information between member attorneys. It should be used to ask questions, share information, and collaborate on municipal law issues. We encourage you and others to join this complimentary service and participate—whether you have a question, an answer, or just want to stay connected.
For questions or assistance in signing up, please contact:
Evelyn Njuguna at evelyn@tml.org or 512-231-7461.
© 2023 TCAA Newsletter • Powered by GeneratePress


text:
Burt H. Robertson
Posted: Sept. 25, 2004, 9 p.m.
Park View Funeral Home in Manteca, was in charge of private services for Burt Howard Robertson, 61, of Ceres. He died Sept. 7, 2004 at his home.
Born Sept. 17, 1942, Mr. Robertson was a native of Oakland and lived in Ceres for one month and previously lived in South Lake Tahoe, Aptos and Manteca. He was a police officer. Mr. Robertson enjoyed riding his motorcycle. He served in the Air Force.
He leaves behind his wife, Carol Robertson of San Jose; two children, Dan Robertson of Ceres and Kristina Joseph of Lawrenceville, Ga.; his brother, Dale Robertson of Manteca; and two grandchildren.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Sport Oakwell Legends Wembley 2000
One in five worked from home last year
Ambulance workers go on strike
Call for action at dumping hotspot
Doting dads invited to London to deliver speech
Town's vaccination figures revealed
Duff rues 'harsh' red but admits team 'not at races'
Possible new signing 'in the building'
COMMENT: What do Barnsley need for Christmas?
24/12/20 • By Doug O'Kane
LAST Christmas, Barnsley were third-bottom having collected 19 points from 23 games including four wins, while they had conceded 46 goals.
This time, despite having played three games fewer, they have nine more points and are nine positions higher, with twice as many wins, while they have let in 18 fewer goals.
They are five points off the top six and 12 clear of the bottom three.
It is clearly a weaker Championship, with many teams struggling to make signings during the coronavirus crisis, but it is also a much stronger Barnsley.
The core of last season's squad who stayed up in extraordinary circumstamces remain, and are getting better, while they have been supplemented by some good summer signings and inspired by new coach Valerien Ismael who has made a phenomenal impact so far.
They have just come through a spell of nine gamesin 28 days since the last international break, collecting 15 points, stretching the gap between them and the bottom three well into double figures and flirting with the top half.
Although the whispers of a promotion challenge may have quietened slightly after Saturday's loss at Swansea, Barnsley's points tally of 28 is the most they have had after 20 Championship games since Keith Hill's first season 2011/12.
That is despite the joint longest wait for a first victory in a century.
They are on course for their highest finish in the last 20 years, which is currently 14th in the 2016/17 Championship under Paul Heckingbottom with 58 points.
Here are what they should want for Christmas:
TO KEEP STAR PLAYERS AS PROMISED
The two times Barnsley have made a comparable start to their current season in the last ten years, were in 2011/12 then 2016/17 when Keith Hill and Paul Heckingbottom both had the Reds a few points off the play-off places and on good form going into January.
Both times, stars players left the club and Barnsley plummeted down the division.
Now, instead of Danny Drinkwater and Ricardo Vaz Te, or Sam Winnall and Conor Hourihane, it is Cauley Woodrow and Callum Styles who the Reds will mainly be trying to keep.
Everyone at the club is insistent that this window will be different, with chief executive Dane Murphy saying it 'wouldn't make sense' to sell in January and that this side deserves to be given at least one full season to see how far they can go.
That is an encouraging sentiment – and Murphy spoke very convincingly of the owners, board and staff being united in that belief – but could it be tested if Barnsley get offers of £5million or more?
It would surely have to be at least that to justify selling Woodrow who has proven himself to be among the best strikers in the division while there is understood to be a significant sell-on clause owed to his previous club Fulham. The same logic applies to 20-year-old Styles who is only going to get better in the coming years as well as centre-back Mads Andersen, who turns 23 on Sunday and is also thought to have admirers at other clubs.
The other question is: who will have that kind of money to spend in January?
Many Premier League clubs will – budgets bolstered by huge TV deals despite the coronavirus crisis – and some in the Championship who sell to the top flight for big money and then want replacements.
That is what we saw in the summer with Brentford, Birmingham, Forest and Norwich, among others, following the sales of Ollie Watkins, Jude Bellingham, Matty Cash and Ben Godfrey respectively for at least £15million each before a portion of that was then spent on new recruits.
That may happen again, but probably to a lesser extent as clubs are traditionally more cautious in the winter window.
That is what Murphy is alluding to when he says it makes no sense to sell.
He is backing Barnsley's players to keep improving and become more valuable in future markets which are more flush with money following the hopefully successful vaccine and full return of fans.
It also would not make sense to sell because it would probably sew the first seeds of frustration for Ismael and risk the same happening as it did with his predecessors Gerhard Struber, Daniel Stendel and Heckingbottom, who all left after seeing their best players leave and dreams of progression up the table scuppered.
JAMES, PACE AND DEPTH IN WINDOW
In terms of signings coming into Oakwell next month – assuming they do not have to replace any sold stars – then squad depth and competition are the key words.
The head coach and chief executive have openly said they are looking to bring in a new striker and a new centre-back, with Forest Green's Liam Kitching an option for the defence.
In both positions, it would be good to see some extra pace brought into the squad to add a new dimension.
Brexit means Barnsley will be focusing on signing British players rather than from overseas as in previous windows. They did good domestic business after the international window had closed in October by signing Matty James and Callum Brittain. More of the same could be vital in the coming weeks, although the difficulty of signing overseas players may mean that more clubs join the Reds in searching for the top lower league talent.
The striker signing will be to allow top-scorer Cauley Woodrow more time on the bench, either having been taken off or given the odd game to rest. A new signing in his position may provide him with extra motivation and focus, although he does not seem to lack either.
It may not be easy to recruit someone to obviously be second choice, as Tottenham Hotspur have found when trying to find a back-up for Harry Kane.
But improving Barnsley may be an attractive prospect for a striker who wants to develop himself.
As for the centre-back, the unoccupied number five shirt is up for grabs with another 'body' needed to provide more competition in an any area where Barnsley, who play a back three, are just one or two injuries or suspensions away from running out of first team players.
Michael Sollbauer and Mads Andersen are ever-presents and having good seasons, with Michal Helik and Aapo Halme – who is out with injury for the next three weeks – not quite as reliable or consistent fixtures in the side.
Another option would provide the depth and competition the Reds will need as they play the second half of the season, 23 games, within 16 weeks with at least six midweek matches.
Jordan Williams, who impressed on the left of the back three at the start of the season before his injury, should not be forgotten and adds extra mobility and speed against sides who try to nip in between the centre-backs and wing-backs.
In the summer window, left-back looked a problem position but Callum Styles has excelled there and, although his favourite position is central midfield, that is another high-quality area. Ismael has said he is happy with Styles and Brittain at wing-back backed up by Williams and Clarke Oduor.
The Reds are also hopeful of keeping Matty James whose loan deal is due to expire next month.
The Leicester midfielder's experience will be vital in managing this second part of the season.
He says he wants to stay but it is understood to be down to Leicester.
Keeping James in the midfield could be just as vital as strengthening the attack and defence.
DERBY SUCCESS THEN A FEW SHOCKS
Wins against Yorkshire rivals Huddersfield Town and Rotherham United would be a magnificent end to what has been a remarkable year for Barnsley, who have already registered 19 wins in 2020 as well as their last-gasp survival last season and the positive start to this campaign.
The Rotherham game, scheduled for Tuesday, was last night in danger of being called off due to an outbreak of coronavirus in the Millers' camp. That would be a shame because it would have been a local derby in Christmas week, and seemed like a winnable game for the Reds against a relegation-battler. But it would ease the Christmas schedule and mean Barnsley will play one game a week for a month.
They still host the Terriers on Saturday in what looks set to be a close game between two near neighbours on the same number of points.
The Reds then go on a high into what could be a challenging January on and off the pitch.
The first game in 2021 – and the first in front of fans for nine months – is a trip to runaway leaders Norwich City where Barnsley have not won in 17 attempts since 1937.
That will be Barnsley's 11th match in 43 days since the last international break and is followed by a two-week hiatus from the gruelling Championship season, which Barnsley's young and, in some places, shallow squad has done remarkably well to negotiate so well.
January then sees the Reds face more promotion contenders as they host Swansea on January 16 before visiting Watford three days later then completing that week at home to Cardiff City.
The month is then concluded with a trip to Nottingham Forest who appear to be gradually improving under Chris Hughton.
If they can continue to pick up regular wins against those sides, while also doing well off the pitch in the transfer window, then they could be set for a special season.
TO STOP EARLY AND SET PIECE GOALS
The Reds have not kept a clean sheet in eight games – their longest such run of 2020.
They are being dogged by early goals, having conceded in the first five minutes of their last three games, and set piece woes with Brentford, Preston and Swansea all scoring from corners.
Ismael will now have more time to work on that on the training pitch with a less intense schedule.
Statistically Barnsley's usual back five are all performing very well. Callum Styles has made the most tackles per game in the division and Callum Brittain is in the top five for blocking crosses.
Mads Andersen has made the most clearances and interceptions in the league – with Michal Helik and Michael Sollbauer joining him in the top five for each – and is top ten for winning aerial balls. The Reds have made the most tackles and interceptions in the division.
But that will all mean nothing unless they are switched on early and from set pieces.
SUPPORTERS BACK AT OAKWELL
While Barnsley's form has been very good, every win would be far sweeter if there were fans in the grounds to cheer them off.
The stadiums are empty for the right reasons but football will seem incomplete until the hubbub of a crowd returns.
The Reds were due to play in front of 2,000 Norwich fans on January 2 but Norfolk has now been placed in tier four.
Outbreaks at various EFL clubs show football is far from free of Covid and only a successful vaccine will see Oakwell full again. The best they can hope for in the short-term is an upgrade to tier two which will allow 2,000 fans back in.
Romal Palmer has played 13 games for Barnsley but is yet to appear in front of a crowd in his professional career, while Michal Helik, Dominik Frieser and Callum Brittain have never seen fans at Oakwell.
The Reds have collected 12 wins in 29 league games behind closed doors and some may say they perform better without fans.
But surely every footballer wants to see packed terraces and feel a live atmosphere.
Penistone foodbank find storage for donations
OAKWELL ROUND-UP: Reaction to Thomas move, loan strikers net and 18s win
Duff backs current squad but more signings still possible
Kids' therapy service launch fundraising mission
Councillor: Pothole-ridden roads 'unacceptable'
Bobby Thomas: 'Eyes fixed on top six minimum'
Lexus saloon takes it to the Germans
Exeter apologise for late postponement
Blind care home resident helps vulnerable locals
Queen's Award winner gets special visit
Pension credit highlighted by MP
MBE for Royston's Robert
Long-term empty homes to be discussed
Family vow to fight for answers
Police dog retires from force


Free Zoosk Dating Coupon Codes, Zoosk Features!
Get the best zoosk. People can find numerous options online to consider and shop at Zoosk, using online coupon codes and discounts. You get the same discounts and offers.
This algorithm examines who clients search for, how they respond to suggested matches and whom they message.
They give free trial program in which people can enjoy premium membership for few days. Show less Show more Approximately years ago, marriage was about convenience. The services are available in over 25 different languages in more than 80 countries.
Why should you use Zoosk? Zoosk now currently stands a market leader with potential for growth that can give the likes of Tinder a very good run for their money. Add the Item to your shopping cart.
Join the club with your Zoosk promo code and be counted among the trendsetters in dating. Zoosk is not a free dating site as many people are thinking, but they offer free service for few days so that people can see and if they like their service can buy premium features.
Along with regular sales, awesome products at incredible prices can be identified when you use Zoosk promo codes. At last, you can enjoy a big discount after the code is applied.
Zoosk takes pride in ensuring that every penny is accounted for and you get back as much as possible. Zoosk promo code is the door that never shuts because once a zoosk.
A major chunk of this was down to the startup philosophy that profits do not matter; a theory which makes it extremely difficult to survive in the long-run as a firm will not succeed if does not make money.
If you have any questions about using your coupons online, please contact Zoosk.
Make sure to use the offer code at the time of buying your Premium subscription. With the changing technology, the company was forced to create an app so as to ease the website access. There are many packages available in Zoosk like Free Trial, 1 month Premium feature, free zoosk subscription, 3 month subscription, free membership, 3 days trial, UK, Australia membership offer, codigo pronominal zoosk, Free communication offer etc.
Whether you feel that you can afford the membership at Zoosk or not, just visit the Zoosk website and check out the fantastic daily offers that all other man and women are enjoying.
Second, copy and paste the Zoosk promo codes before checkout. In that way, you can check the water and decide whether to go with them or not. As a coupon website, promocode. Premium features usually last for 15 days to month depends on the Zoosk Promo Code that you submit during registration.
Free Trial — Are you new to them? Click to Grab the Discount Coupons Get Deal About Zoosk Zoosk is an American company that offers dating solutions to people who wish to find partners that meet their descriptions.
You can enjoy all the premium features throughout the entire year. Rather than demand that clients fill out long surveys, Zoosk uses an algorithm called Behavioral Matchmaking.
As it turned out the company was spending too much on expansion and over hiring, which drained resources immensely and affected their profits significantly. First of all you need to copy and paste the promo code from this page. Available for all the existing and new members.
We would be very happy if the instructions above could be helpful to you. It has active members in 80 countries and available in 19 different language.


text:
Japan isn't making preparations to postpone 2020 Summer Olympics, government spokesman says
Leika Kihara
The sun sets behind the Olympic rings installation at Odaiba Marine Park, in Tokyo, Japan, on March 18, 2020.Clive Rose/Getty Images
Japan is not making any preparations to postpone the 2020 Summer Olympics, the government's top spokesman said on Wednesday, stressing Tokyo's resolve to host the event as scheduled despite the global spread of coronavirus.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the government would continue with preparations to hold the July 24-Aug. 9 Games as scheduled, working closely with organizations such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
"We're not making any adjustments to postpone the Games," Suga told parliament when asked by a lawmaker whether the government was making plans to cancel or postpone the event.
His comments come amid mounting concerns about whether the Games can proceed as planned, with the rapidly spreading virus panicking financial markets and bringing business and social activity around the world to a standstill. Many sports events have been canceled or postponed.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said on Tuesday that Group of Seven leaders had agreed to support a "complete" Olympics, but dodged questions about whether any of the leaders had brought up the possibility of postponement.
The IOC has remained committed to staging the Tokyo Games as planned, saying on Tuesday after a meeting with international sports federations that measures against the virus were delivering results.
But it is facing growing voices of dissent from top athletes worried about their health. The new coronavirus has so far killed more than 7,500 people and infected about 200,000 worldwide.
A plane sporting Tokyo 2020 livery left Japan to collect the Olympic flame from Athens without a high-level delegation onboard, reflecting the disruption the virus is causing to preparations for the Games.
Most Japanese firms trust the Tokyo Games will go ahead as planned, a Reuters poll found, but two-thirds are already bracing for the domestic economy to contract by at least 1% if the epidemic triggers a cancellation.
The Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported that Olympics tickets might not be refundable, leading to successful applicants taking to social media with fears they might be left out of pocket.
Even if Japan can contain the coronavirus outbreak, the Summer Olympic Games "would not make sense" if other countries cannot send their athletes, Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso said on Wednesday.
"As the prime minister said, it's desirable to hold the Olympics in an environment where everyone feels safe and happy. But that's not something Japan alone can decide," Aso, who is also Japan's finance minister, told parliament.
IOC insists Olympics will go on, leaving athletes and officials split on how to proceed
Tokyo 2020 Games handover ceremony stripped down to bare bones
The IOC still insists the Olympics are happening – they are living in fantasyland


Countess Simonetta Brandolini d'Adda often stays in one of her company's 80 villas—mostly around Tuscany and Lake Como—when on vacation. Her well-connected owner friends can arrange private museum visits or concerts for clients.
The celeb-friendly eight-bedroom estate outside Pisa has its own laundress to attend to your riding gear. From $43,981/week.


Madison, Wis., resident Gary Storck has suffered from glaucoma since he was a child. When he was a teenager, Storck read that marijuana could relieve the pressure and pain in his eyes, and he has been using it as a medicine ever since. He is seen in his apartment in Madison with his cat, Roy, on March 20.
A 21-year-old University of Wisconsin-Madison student shops for marijuana at A Cut Above Dispensary in Denver on March 23. Colorado is one of 10 states where recreational and medical use of marijuana is legal. Another 23 states allow cannabis only for medical uses. Both are illegal in Wisconsin.
Madison, Wis., resident Gary Storck shows out-of-state medical marijuana cards and marijuana-related memorabilia. Storck uses the cards under an obscure Wisconsin law that allows patients to have a controlled substance with a valid prescription or order from a doctor. Storck uses cannabis to relieve the symptoms of glaucoma.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers has proposed decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, legalizing cannabis for medical uses and expungement for past marijuana possession convictions. Here he greets members of the Assembly and Senate after giving his first State of the State address in Madison, Wis., at the State Capitol on Jan. 22.
Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney greets officers during a Crisis Intervention Training graduation ceremony at the Dane County Law Enforcement Training Center in Waunakee, Wis., on March 15. The Democratic sheriff says he favors decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, as Dane County already has done, and legalizing cannabis for medical uses. But he opposes full legalization until more studies are done about its effects in other states.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, says he opposes most of Evers' plan regarding marijuana. He is seen here during a 2018 hearing at the state Capitol.
Alan Robinson, executive director of the Wisconsin chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), says his organization is expanding and opening new chapters in the state. Public support for marijuana legalization has grown in recent years, but he says many Republicans who run the Legislature oppose it. He is seen on Jan. 31, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Madison, Wis., resident Gary Storck says he normally uses marijuana every two to three hours, mainly with a vaporizer that heats the marijuana and fills a clear bag with vapor, which he inhales.
State Rep. Melissa Sargent, D-Madison, introduced bills to legalize marijuana in Wisconsin each of the past three legislative sessions. Sargent says she has heard from many constituents of the benefits of using marijuana and the harm of marijuana-related arrests and convictions. She is seen at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on Jan. 31.
Every two to three hours, Madison, Wis., resident Gary Storck inhales marijuana to relieve the symptoms of glaucoma. Storck is a leading advocate of legalizing marijuana for medical use in Wisconsin. He co-founded the group, Is My Medicine Legal Yet?, and he writes the Cannabadger blog, which tracks proposals to legalize marijuana in Wisconsin. He is seen in his apartment on March 20.


apartment, 8 - 9 people, 5 room/s, 4 bedroom/s, 2 bathroom/s, approx. 127 m², 1 floor/s, apartment on raised ground floor, south-west-facing location, renovated. Feature: Property in a multi-family housing. Furnishing: functional, carpet, laminate floor. Equipment: satellite TV; internet access Wi-Fi (included); Heating; storage room in the house. Room layout: Living room: furniture suite. Dining area: in the kitchen. Kitchen: separate. Kitchen/ cooking equipment: 5 ceramic hobs, oven, microwave oven, dish-washer, refrigerator, coffee machine, water boiler. Bedroom 1: double bed. Bedroom 2: double bed. Bedroom 3: 3 x single bed. Bedroom 4: 2 x single bed. Additional information: direct access to sanitary no 2. Sanitary 1: bath, WC. Sanitary 2(access from one bedroom only): shower, WC.
€ 20 per person and week (depending on occupancy) plus Holiday resort tax. Linen/towels available. Deposit € 200 (in cash). Extra bed foldable bed, € 30 per person/stay (on order). Cot/High chair free of charge (on order). Pet not allowed.
Situation: in the hamlet Fuhrmannsloch, dead-end street. Access/parking: parking on the estate. Estate (shared use with holiday guests): partially self-contained (fence), lawn. Garden maintenance by the owner. Outdoor facilities(shared use): reserved open space, furnishing provided, brick barbecue. Sports facilities/ leisure time: shared use (free of charge): children's playing equipment. Infrastructure: bakery service; bikeshed. ● Distances: Center Nauders in approx. 4 km. Landeck in approx. 45 km. Innsbruck in approx. 114 km. Next supermarket (Nauders) in approx. 4 km. Train station Landeck in approx. 45 km. Airport Innsbruck in approx. 114 km. Lake in approx. 3.5 km (Reschensee). Grassy beach in approx. 3.5 km (Reschensee). Public outdoor swimming pool in approx. 17 km, free entrance for INTER CHALET guests (Freibad Pfunds: ca. 01.06.-15.09.). Indoor public swimming pool in approx. 6 km (Graun/Vinschgau). Cable car Nauders, in approx. 2.2 km. Golf course Scuol: Golfclub Vulpera (9-hole golf course) in approx. 31 km.


text:
No SOFA agreement signed with US - PM
The government has not signed any Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with United States other than the letters earlier exchanged in 1995 between the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the US Embassy in Sri Lanka, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told Parliament yesterday. He said the US government has made several proposals and the government has not yet agreed and still their (proposals) are to be considered. The Premier however assured that not a single agreement that would affect the country's sovereignty would be entered into. He made these observations yesterday in response to a query made by JVP Parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake during the round of questions from the Prime Minister. SLPP MP Bandula Gunawardena also was scheduled to make a query on agreements with the US government and had notified the question as well but he was not present during the round of questions. The Premier spoke on SOFA agreement, Millennium Challenge Agreements and Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) as well. The Premier further said that some media had misleadingly reported that a SOFA agreement has been signed in 2017. He added that had such an agreement been signed in 2017, it would be illegal and fake. He challenged the news media making these claims to give him a copy so that he could go to the Police against the wrong doers. Premier Wickremesinghe tabled copies of the letters exchanged in 1995 and the ACSA agreement entered into during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime for perusal by the House. He added that during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had again renewed the content of the documents in 2007 as those agreements expire after 10 years. He added that the same agreement was renewed on August 4 in 2017.The Premier said the same agreement in 1995 was not a mutual defence agreement but it generally establishes the framework under which US military personnel operate in a foreign country. The Premier pointed out that the letters exchanged again between former Defence Ministry Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and the US Embassy comprised seven pages while the renewed document in 2017 comprised only five pages. He queried as to how a five page agreement could have more effect than that with seven pages. The Premier also said that the Foreign Affairs Minister went to the United States not to enter into a SOFA agreement with the US government but to discuss all the agreements between the two countries which was a routine process every two years. The Premier also said that during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) had been signed with the US. He noted that under this agreement the US forces who serve in Sri Lanka and the civil employees of the US Defence Ministry too enjoy diplomatic privileges.He also said that the in the agreement between late President J. R. Jayawardene and late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi it was agreed that the Trincomalee harbour or any other harbour would not be available for military use to any foreign military in a prejudicial manner to India. Hence the harbours are not available for USA, China or England or any other country, but they can come on visits. The Premier also said that none in the Opposition questioned when these agreements were entered into or renewed by them during the previous regimes. He said that there is a discussion between the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the US Embassy in Sri Lanka on their proposals. He added that he too has issues with some proposals and he had conveyed his opinion to them. He added that the Government has the responsibility to ensure the security for sea routes in the Indian Ocean too. He assured the House that when the discussions were complete and if the Cabinet approved it, the same documents would be presented to Parliament for approval.Premier explained that Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement was solely for the funding of infrastructure facilities in the country.
US eyes Sri Lanka as its military logistics hub
News Comments // The Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka on 21st April in which 259 people were killed and over 500 injured were initially attributed to the...
Asian Tribune 2019-07-07
Kuragala will be provided with power in four days
Power, Energy and Business Development Minister Ravi Karunanayake said he will provide electricity to the Kuragala archaeological site and the sacred area even if ongoing...
Sri Lanka News 2019-07-12
PM rejects BASL claims saying NO SOFA signed
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had rejected claims made by members of the Bar Association (BASL) that the SOFA agreement, MCC and Land Bill were all interconnected. A...
Working overtime to defend a defence deal
Over the last two months, the U.S. finds itself constantly under scrutiny in Sri Lanka, where it has been accused of pushing the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), or at...
The Hindu 2019-07-13
NCM DEFEATED BY MAJORITY
The No Confidence Motion (NCM) brought against the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Government was defeated in Parliament yesterday by 27 votes.The motion received 92 votes in favour and 119 votes against it. The JVP, UFPA and SLFP MPs voted for the motion which had been debated for two days.The TNA, UNP and its allies voted against the motion. The motion was submitted by...
DIALOGUE ON COUNTER TERRORISM COOPERATION WITH EU IN COLOMBO
Issuing a Media Releases the Foreign Ministry said that a delegation led by EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove visited Sri Lanka from 11 – 16 July 2019 for the EU- Sri Lanka Ad Hoc Dialogue on Counter Terrorism Cooperation.The Ad Hoc Dialogue, co-chaired by Actg Secretary/Foreign Affairs Ahmed A Jawad and EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator de Kerchove, covered...
Sri Lanka Orders Arrest of Top Police Watchdog
Sri Lanka's chief prosecutor on Wednesday ordered the arrest of a top officer at the police watchdog over his alleged involvement in a multi-million dollar gun-running racket. Saman Dissanayake, the secretary and third in command of the National Police Commission, was ordered to appear in court by Friday over the transfer of state weapons to a private company. At the time of...
Sri Lanka Supreme Court stays execution of drug offence convicts
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka on Friday stayed the death penalty for four persons convicted on drug-related offences until October 30, temporarily preventing the country's first hanging in 43 years. In June, President Maithripala Sirisenahe signed papers to execute four convicts, effectively ending a 43-year-old moratorium on capital punishment. Amid concern voiced by local...
The no-confidence motion against Sri Lanka Government defeated with 119 votes
Slide_News // The motion was taken up for a vote yesterday evening following a two-day long debate which began on day-before-yesterday (Jul 10). The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) had submitted the motion in a bid to defeat the government over their failure to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks. After two days of debate the motion was taken for a vote yesterday and 92 MPs voted...
Sri Lankan president vetoes military deal with US
COLOMBO: Sri Lanka's President on Saturday announced he will not allow his government to conclude a proposed military deal that would allow US troops free access to the island's ports. Maithripala Sirisena said he was opposed to the draft Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that the two countries are negotiating to further strengthen their military ties. Sirisena is at...


text:
Two black women running for mayor? For some black men, that's a nightmare
By Laura Washington Mar 3, 2019, 4:36pm CST
Share All sharing options for: Two black women running for mayor? For some black men, that's a nightmare
Lori Lightfoot (left) and Toni Preckwinkle, shown at their election night parties on Feb. 26. | Sun-Times photos
Wednesday morning, I awoke from a dream. Chicago's next mayor will be an African-American woman.
But it's real. On Tuesday, voters chose Lori Lightfoot, an attorney and former president of the Chicago Police Board, and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle to face off in the April 2 runoff election.
For some black men, that's a nightmare.
Kimberley Egonmwan laid it out on Facebook.
"If tonight's broadcast is any indication, many Black men in Chicago won't be able to stomach April 2nd or the next four years," she posted on election night.
"Tell me more, girlfriend!" I wrote to Egonmwan, a commentator on WVON-AM, Chicago's black talk radio.
"While covering the election last night, when the Lori Lightfoot/Toni Preckwinkle matchup became clear, I was repeatedly told that 'Black women are successful because white men set them up for success as a more palatable alternative to black men,' " Egonmwan replied.
It's an ancient bromide. Black folks love conspiracy theories, especially this one. If a black man is down, a black woman must have teamed up with the man who put them there, some men say.
Sexism in the black community is a quiet, yet venomous threat. Too many men cannot abide a woman who achieves.
Chicago's most senior and prominent black politicians dissed the three talented African-American women who ran in the Feb. 26 election.
South Side U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush endorsed former U.S. Commerce Secretary Bill Daley and pushed him in ads on black radio.
U.S. Rep Danny Davis urged his West Side constituents to vote for businessman Willie Wilson.
The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson invited all the candidates to his Rainbow PUSH forums, but did not endorse. (He met with Lightfoot Thursday).
Other black male "leaders" have not stepped up.
"Forget all of the accomplishments, the education, the constant fight just to exist or the fact that our community has largely survived because in every Black home there is a Black woman that has refused to fail — none of that matters," Egonmwan noted.
Lightfoot is a former federal prosecutor and senior partner at Mayer Brown LLP. She did stints as chief of staff and general counsel of the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications, chief administrator of the Office of Professional Standards, and chair of the Police Accountability Task Force.
Preckwinkle is serving her third term on the County Board. She is the first African-American and woman chair of the Cook County Democratic Party, Chicago's most powerful political post. Preckwinkle was elected to five terms as 4th Ward alderman in Hyde Park and Kenwood.
These uber-capable women have spent a lifetime beating down the doors of the old boys' clubs.
When a black woman achieves, some black men are threatened.
Brothers, black Chicago is in trouble. In the last decade, hundreds of thousands of us have left the city. Our communities are shrinking in assets and growing in challenges.
The unemployment rate for black men in Chicago stands at 21 percent, according to a 2018 report by the State of the African-American Male conference, co-convened by Congressman Davis and the Sankofa Safe Child Initiative.
In Chicago, 27 percent of African-American males live in poverty.
Brothers, did you really think the wealthy power class that gave multi-millions of dollars to the Daleys would prioritize our needs?
Lightfoot and Preckwinkle have pledged to bring equity and new resources to Chicago's beleaguered and bereft black communities.
By many measures, it's black men and boys who need them most.
My man, it's time to man up.


text:
Q: Trying to find a way to create sample data with random address in spain I've been trying to create some sample data for a project and I can't seem to find a way to create fake addresses in Spain.
I've tried the faker module but it doesn't really give correct addresses, I need the zip code and the city to match and faker doesn't check that at all. I've thought of using geopy but I would kinda need to apply a bias in the locations so there's more density in big cities.
Does anyone know of a simpler way of getting this type of data?
Or can someone please help me out with how to code that?
Thank you very much in advance!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Continental Resources Inc is located at the address 830 E I L Hwy 15 in Mount Vernon, Illinois 62864. They can be contacted via phone at (618) 242-1717 for pricing, hours and directions.
For maps and directions to Continental Resources Inc view the map to the right. For reviews of Continental Resources Inc see below.


text:
Mayo Clinic's approach
Experience. Doctors trained in cardiovascular medicine and other areas have experience caring for people with heart conditions. More than 9,000 people undergo cardiac catheterizations at Mayo Clinic each year.
Team approach. Mayo Clinic staff in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory collaborates with other specialty areas and offers treatment for several conditions, including carotid artery disease and peripheral artery disease.
Cardiologists with experience diagnosing and treating coronary artery disease collaborate to provide care for people with coronary artery disease and other heart conditions in the Coronary Artery Disease Clinic at Mayo Clinic's campus in Minnesota.
The latest treatments. Mayo Clinic has pioneered several catheter-based therapies, including complex coronary artery revascularization, valve repair and valve replacement.
Mayo Clinic cardiologists use devices that don't require heart surgery to repair certain types of heart valve disorders, such as mitral valve regurgitation.
Scheduling efficiency. A detailed itinerary for appointments, tests and procedures lets you make the most of your time at the clinic. The staff runs all tests and labs at Mayo Clinic, which means tests taken in the morning can be reviewed the same afternoon. This collaborative approach means doctors can often evaluate you and develop a treatment plan within two or three days.
Expertise and rankings
Cardiac catheterization expertise. Mayo Clinic's Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory has been active for over 50 years. Mayo Clinic was among the first centers in the nation to develop and use diagnostic techniques through cardiac catheterization. More than 9,000 people have cardiac catheterizations at Mayo Clinic locations every year.
Comprehensive cardiovascular treatment and research. Doctors in Mayo Clinic's Cardiovascular Research Center are focused on developing cutting-edge, catheter-based diagnostic tests and innovative treatments for people with cardiovascular disease.
Pediatric expertise. At Mayo Clinic's campus in Minnesota, doctors trained in treating children who have heart diseases (pediatric cardiologists) perform cardiac catheterization in children. A magnetic navigation system at Mayo Clinic's campus in Minnesota allows doctors to treat complex coronary artery blockages, including cases in which standard technology failed to open a blocked artery in the past.
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Mayo Clinic in Phoenix/Scottsdale, Ariz., are ranked among the Best Hospitals for heart and heart surgery by U.S. News & World Report. Mayo Clinic Children's Center in Rochester, Minn., is ranked among the Best Children's Hospitals for heart and heart surgery by U.S. News & World Report.
With Mayo Clinic's emphasis on collaborative care, specialists at each of the campuses — Minnesota, Arizona and Florida — interact very closely with colleagues at the other campuses and the Mayo Clinic Health System.
Learn more about Mayo Clinic's Cardiovascular Surgery and Cardiovascular Medicine departments' expertise and rankings.
Locations, travel and lodging
Mayo Clinic has major campuses in Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Rochester, Minnesota. The Mayo Clinic Health System has dozens of locations in several states.
For more information on visiting Mayo Clinic, choose your location below:
Costs and insurance
Mayo Clinic works with hundreds of insurance companies and is an in-network provider for millions of people.
In most cases, Mayo Clinic doesn't require a physician referral. Some insurers require referrals, or may have additional requirements for certain medical care. All appointments are prioritized on the basis of medical need.
Learn more about appointments at Mayo Clinic.
Please contact your insurance company to verify medical coverage and to obtain any needed authorization prior to your visit. Often, your insurer's customer service number is printed on the back of your insurance card.


What is my Learning Support Placement?
In graphing linear equations by using a t-chart, all we have to do is plug in random values for x and random values for y and get our points that way. So using a t-chart, we are going to draw a chart that looks exactly like it says, a "t". We place x on the left hand side and y on the right hand side so it easily becomes a nice point. Now, say for example I wanted to figure out what my x value would be if I plugged in a negative 1. So, for this, all I have to do for this is plug in a negative 1 for my y value and solve for x. I have x plus 2 times negative 1 equals 8. I have x minus 2 equals 8. So, x equals 10. Notice, now I have a point that I have to plot that as (10, minus 1). I go over 10 and then down 1. Here, I am on the far right hand side of the graph. So, let's see what would happen if I wanted to plug in something like a 4 for x. Now all I have to do is plug in a 4 for x and then solve for y. I have 4 plus 2 times y equals 8. This means that 2y equals 4. Therefore, y equals 2. Notice, all I am doing is plugging in any old numbers; it doesn't matter which ones you do. You'll always get an answer that has a point for it. Let's say that for y, I wanted a 3 there. So I have x plus 2 times 3 equals 8. So x plus 6 equals 8. This means that x is going to equal 2. So I have to plot the point (2, 3). I go over 2 and up 3. And I haven't plotted the point (4, 2) yet. So I am going to go over 4 and then up 2. So now, I have three points. You could have graphed this with two points, but I chose three, just to give you a "heads up" on all the different ways you can do this. All you have to do is draw a line through all of those points. Remember to draw the line far across the graph. So, this is graphing a linear equation by using a t-chart.


COLUMBIA - Columbia Regional Airport held a launch party to commemorate American Airlines' first flight out of the airport Thursday afternoon. The launch party included a ribbon cutting, inaugural certificates for passengers, and refreshments.
"This is the very first day and I think a good change is to see the overwhelming response we've gotten from the local community in supporting our services. The flights are full today and they're full for the next few days both in bound and out bound and that's excellent. We couldn't be more pleased," said Senior Manager of Airport Service Development Brett Hooyerink.
Construction and renovation continues at the airport. It includes extensions for both runways.
The airline now offers six flights a day, three in bound and three out bound to Chicago O'Hare International Airport and Dallas Fort Worth Airport.
American Airlines and US Airways announced yesterday an $11 million merger between the two companies creating the largest airline inthe world.


#3A69D7 (or 0x3A69D7) is unknown color: approx Royal Blue. HEX triplet: 3A, 69 and D7. RGB value is (58,105,215). Sum of RGB (Red+Green+Blue) = 58+105+215=378 (50% of max value = 765). Red value is 58 (23.05% from 255 or 15.34% from 378); Green value is 105 (41.41% from 255 or 27.78% from 378); Blue value is 215 (84.38% from 255 or 56.88% from 378); Max value from RGB is 215 - color contains mainly: blue. Hex color #3A69D7 is not a web safe color. Web safe color analog (approx): #3366CC. Inversed color of #3A69D7 is #C59628. Grayscale: #676767. Windows color (decimal): -12949033 or 14117178. OLE color: 14117178.
HSL color Cylindrical-coordinate representation of color #3A69D7: hue angle of 222.04º degrees, saturation: 0.66, lightness: 0.54%. HSV value (or HSB Brightness) of color is 0.84% and HSV saturation: 0.73%. Process color model (Four color, CMYK) of #3A69D7 is Cyan = 0.73, Magento = 0.51, Yellow = 0 and Black (K on CMYK) = 0.16.