Father Isidore Ndagizimana became pastor of St. Thomas More Parish in Austin on July 2, 2012. He resigned that position on Oct. 9, 2017, and was placed on leave. He returned from leave and was then assigned to St. Mary Parish in Brenham on July 2, 2018 as an associate pastor (where the priests also serve the churches in Somerville and Old Washington on the Brazos). He was again placed on leave Aug. 21, 2018, and he remains on leave at this time.
1. “A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.” 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.
In trying a case, a defense attorney will work to highlight the favorable facts of your case and to show the State has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. He will do this in the process of examining the defense witnesses and cross-examining the State’s witnesses. The case will be summarized and important points highlighted in opening and closing arguments. Your attorney will also object to various components of the State’s case based on trial procedures and the rule of law.

Washington state has become a battleground over the legality of online gambling. A landmark ruling last year against the then-parent company of Seattle-based Big Fish Games found that it was facilitating online gambling because the chips in the company’s casual casino games represented a “thing of value” under state law because users can’t play without them.
The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company[4] (September 1999), one would assume that Mr. Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it as found that Mr. Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Mr. Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.[5]
×