ARDSON Upshur County v. Richardson was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a dispute between Upshur County, Texas and Richardson, Texas over the county’s right to annex a portion of Richardson’s territory. The Supreme Court held that Upshur County had the right to annex the territory, as it was within the county’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Court also held that Richardson had no right to challenge the annexation, as it was not a party to the dispute. The case began when Upshur County attempted to annex a portion of Richardson’s territory. Richardson challenged the annexation, arguing that it was not within the county’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the annexation was within the county’s jurisdiction. The Court also held that Richardson had no standing to challenge the annexation, as it was not a party to the dispute. The decision in Upshur County v. Richardson was a victory for local governments, as it affirmed their right to annex territory within their extraterritorial jurisdiction. The decision also reaffirmed the principle that non-parties to a dispute cannot challenge the outcome.

ARDSON In the dissenting opinion of UPSHUR COUNTY v. RICHARDSON, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the applicable law and precedent. He noted that in this case, there was no dispute as to whether or not Richardson had been denied due process; rather, it was an issue of whether or not he had received adequate notice prior to his eviction from his home. The majority held that Richardson did receive sufficient notice because he had been informed by mail several weeks before being evicted. However, Justice Blackmun disagreed with this conclusion and argued instead that Richardson should have received more specific information about why he was being evicted and what steps could be taken to prevent it from happening. Furthermore, since Texas state law required such notification for tenants facing eviction proceedings, Justice Blackmun concluded that Richardson's rights were violated when he failed to receive proper notice prior to his eviction.