San Patricio County Appraisal District v. Vitol, Inc.

NUMBER 13-24-00413-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

SAN PATRICIO COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.

VITOL, INC., Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
OF SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

In this case, the trial court held that inventories of crude oil held in coastal tank

farms in San Patricio County are exempt from state property tax under the Import-Export

Clause of the United States Constitution. By three issues, appellant San Patricio County

Appraisal District argues that the trial court: (1) failed to enforce the rules of discovery, (2)

improperly granted summary judgment for appellee Vitol Inc., and (3) failed to comply
with the notice requirements of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166a. We affirm.

I. DISCUSSION

In two previous opinions, this Court determined that these specific arguments and

these exact issues lacked merit. See San Patricio Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Gunvor USA

LLC, No. 13-24-00590-CV, 2026 WL 59714, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

Jan. 8, 2026, no pet. h.) and San Patricio Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Devon Gas Servs., L.P.,

as Agent for Glencore Ltd., No. 13-25-00027-CV, 2026 WL 59714, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 8, 2026, no pet. h.). In those cases, San Patrico County

made the same arguments and argued the same issues as it does here: the trial court

erred by “failing to enforce the rules of discovery” and by “granting summary judgment in

favor of appellees.”1 See Gunvor USA, 2026 WL 59714, at *1; Devon Gas Servs., 2026

WL 59714, at *1.

Regarding discovery, we held that San Patricio inadequately briefed the issue

because it did not supply record citations identifying the alleged error committed by the

trial court, did not demonstrate how it properly preserved the issue for appeal, did not

identify the applicable standard of review, and did not provide argument and authorities

relevant to the standard of review. See Gunvor USA, 2026 WL 59714, at *1; Devon Gas

Servs., 2026 WL 59714, at *1. We overruled that issue in both causes.

Regarding summary judgment, we held that the oil at issue entered the stream of

export and therefore enjoyed immunity from taxation under the Import-Export Clause of

the United States Constitution. See Gunvor USA, 2026 WL 59714, at *1; Devon Gas

Servs., 2026 WL 59714, at *1. We concluded that as a result, the trial court did not err in

1 The briefs in 13-24-00590-CV, 13-25-00027-CV are verbatim to the briefs in this appellate cause,

and the facts in this cause are identical to those in 13-24-00590-CV, 13-25-00027-CV. We need not recite
them again as they are not necessary to the resolution of this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
2
granting summary judgment in favor of Gunvor and Devon Gas, and we overruled San

Patricio County’s second issue in both causes. As we are required to follow our own

precedent, we make the same conclusions here: San Patricio inadequately briefed the

issue regarding discovery, and the oil is immune from taxation. See Gunvor USA, 2026

WL 59714, at *1; Devon Gas Servs., 2026 WL 59714, at *1.

Similarly, we reject San Patricio County’s third argument that the trial court failed

to comply with the notice requires of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166a because it

afforded appellant only twenty days’ notice rather than twenty-one days’ notice. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 166a (requiring at least twenty-one days’ notice of a summary judgment

hearing). The alleged error is not reversable unless it: “(1) probably caused the rendition

of an improper judgment; or (2) probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting

the case to the court of appeals.” TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1; see also Martinez v. Beckwith, No.

13-12-00498-CV, 2013 WL 1683656, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 18,

2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that insufficient notice was harmless when non-

movant “was not prevented from timely filing a response”). Here, San Patricio County

failed to identify any harm resulting from the alleged error of providing it only twenty-days’

notice. Furthermore, San Patricio County provided a response to appellees’ motion for

summary judgment. Accordingly, we overrule San Patricio County’s third issue.

II. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
12th day of February, 2026.

3