TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It even made the TV news up there. It was a big decision for a lot of folks needing a place to shoot.

Chas.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23911761/judg ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Charles, since it appears that Judge Gassaway abdicated a large part of his responsibilities to the plaintiff and let Plaintiff decide A) what conditions should be required, and B) if those conditions had been met, is there any likelihood that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could be persuaded to get involved and sanction Gassaway in some way or other?

The judge did no such thing. After the jury verdict against the range, a hearing was held to decide what improvements the judge would ultimately order. Both sides presented evidence and the judge issued an order that required far less than what was demanded by the Plaintiff. In fact, the court's order was very close to what the defendant's expert testified would be required. After the improvements were made, the plaintiff was allowed to inspect the property next door to him to see if he agreed that the range improvements met the court's order. If not, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to submit specific written objections. Then a hearing would be held and the judge would decide. Each side could call witnesses, including expert witnesses, call fact witnesses and cross-examine all witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the judge would rule based upon the evidence. This happened at one hearing prior to me getting involved in the case. After that first hearing, the judge required the range to change two items.

The plaintiff inspected the range again and claimed it still did not meet the judge's order. I then got involved and represented the defendants in the latest hearing. We again presented evidence, called fact and expert witnesses, cross-examined witnesses and ultimately prevailed. It should also be noted that the judge's ruling after the first compliance hearing contained a strong warning to plaintiff not to frivolously refuse to agree that the changes made by the range owner complied with the court's order. He proved to be a man of his word when he ruled in our favor.

Chas.