Motion to Take Judicial Notice in Texas

What Is a Motion to Take Judicial Notice?

Background

“Under Texas Rule of Evidence 201, a court must take judicial notice of adjudicative facts, including another court's records, if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.” (Spy, Inc. v. SC Legacy Independence, Ltd. (2015) No. 05-15-00763-CV, at *1 citing Tex. R. Evid. 201(c),(d); Freedom Commc'n, Inc. v. Coronado (2012) 372 S.W.3d 621, 623.)

How to Structure the Motion

”To be the proper subject of judicial notice, a fact must be “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” (Pub Util Counsel v. Pub Util Com'n of Texas (1994) 878 S.W.2d 598, 600 citing Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 201(b)(2).) Judicial notice is mandatory if “requested by a party and [the court is] supplied with the necessary information.” (Id., citing Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 201(d).)

Judicially noticed facts cannot be subject to reasonable dispute in that they are either:

generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.

(Tex. R. Evid. 201(b).)

Judicial Notice of Other States’ Laws

“Under rule 202, a trial court is required to take judicial notice of another state's law only when a party files an appropriate motion.” (Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Gunderson, Inc. (2007) 235 S.W.3d 287, 291 citing Tex. R. Evid. 202 ["A court upon its own motion may, or upon the motion of a party shall, take judicial notice. . ."].)

A motion to take judicial notice of another state's laws is proper where the state in question has a greater interest in the transaction than Texas. (See, e.g., Merritt, Hawkins & Assocs., LLC v. Caporicci, No. 05-15-00851-CV, at *7-8 (Tex. App. May 2, 2016 [stating that, “[b]ecause California has a more significant relationship than Texas to the transaction, California has a materially greater interest than Texas in the determination of the particular issue, and application of Texas law is ‘contrary to a fundamental policy’ of California, we conclude the trial court did not err by granting the motion to take judicial notice and apply California law with respect to the employment contracts in this case.”])

The Court’s Decision

“A court of appeals has the power to take judicial notice for the first time on appeal.” (Pub Util Counsel v. Pub Util Com'n of Texas (1994) 878 S.W.2d 598, 600 citing Langdale v. Villamil (1991) 813 S.W.2d 187, 189-90; City of Dallas v. Moreau (1986) 718 S.W.2d 776, 781.)

“An appellate court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact sua sponte.” (See Tex. R. Evid. 201(f); In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland (2008) 280 S.W.3d 227, 229 n.6 [taking judicial notice sua sponte that trial judge had been replaced by election during pendency of mandamus case]; see also O'Quinn v. Hall (2002) 77 S.W.3d 438, 447 [discussing nature of “adjudicative facts”]; Harper v. Killion (1961) 162 Tex. 481, 485, 348 S.W.2d 521, 523 [holding intermediate appellate court could take judicial notice that entire city of Jacksonville was located in Cherokee County, Texas]; City of Dallas v. Moreau, (1986) 718 S.W.2d 776, 781 [concluding appellate court could take judicial notice of city charter on appeal when city charter showed trial court lacked authority to submit wrongful-termination appeal to a jury.])