Cargill v. Jaime Adan Ballesteros, 03-12-00629-CV (Tex. App. – Austin, November 6, 2013).
Cargill challenged the outcome of the election for constable and asserted claims for tortious interference with his right to seek office. The trial court dismissed the claims and Cargill appealed.
The Austin court first noted that the arguments were provided without authority or proper references. The court did not apparently like the briefings, holding that “[f]ailure to cite legal authority or provide substantive analysis of the legal issue presented results in waiver of the complaint”; court has “no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error.” Further “where a contest between candidates for nomination in a party primary election cannot be tried and a final decree entered in time for substantial compliance with pre-election statutes by officials charged with the duty of preparing for the holding of the general election, the courts must dismiss the contest as being moot.” As a result, the court dismissed all claims.
If you would like to read this opinion click here.