The Fort Worth Court of Appeals has affirmed a Rule 91a dismissal of a Plaintiff’s suit against the City of Arlington and the Texas Rangers. The suit alleged that the City and the team profited from the use of an old newspaper article in which Plaintiff’s great-grandmother was photographed holding a baby picture of the Plaintiff.
William Robert Bush v. City of Arlington and Rangers Baseball Express LLC d/b/a Texas Rangers Baseball Club (No. 02-25-00397-CV; April 2, 2026) arose from a dispute between the descendant of a man whose widow sold land to the City of Arlington for a golf course and the City over the City’s use of a likeness of the ancestor on the course’s grounds. The golf course, named for the ancestor, Chester W. Ditto, included a legacy narrative containing Mr. Ditto’s biography next to the clubhouse. The display also includes a newspaper story in which Plaintiff’s great-grandmother is holding a photo of Plaintiff as a baby. The Rangers got pulled into the suit because they had an agreement with the City changing the name of the course to the Texas Rangers Golf Club.
Plaintiff biblically alleged that “[s]ince 1982, [Defendants] have amassed a river of gold from [Mr. Ditto’s] name and [Plaintiff’s] likeness, yet left [Plaintiff] and heirs stranded in a wilderness of financial and spiritual desolation, their legacy tarnished by unrighteous gain. [Plaintiff], unemployed and burdened by distress, seeks not to dam this river but to share its bounty, like a shepherd reclaiming his flock’s fruits.” He alleged unjust enrichment, breach of implied fiduciary duty, misappropriation of Plaintiff’s likeness, and other theories. He sought constructive trust, $240,000 in damages annually, and punitive damages. Understandably, the City and the Rangers filed Rule 91a motions to dismiss. The trial court dismissed the claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Bassel, the court of appeals affirmed. First, the court held that the City had governmental immunity. Under § 101.0215, CPRC (Texas Tort Claims Act), cities may operate parks and recreational facilities as part of their governmental functions. As held by the Dallas Court of Appeals, municipal golf courses fit within these categories. Plaintiff appears to have argued that by entering into an agreement with the Rangers, the City’s operation of the course must necessarily constitute a proprietary function. No question that the golf course generated income, but that didn’t make it a proprietary function for purposes of waiver of governmental immunity.
Plaintiff’s fiduciary duty argument fell flat as well, since neither the City nor the Rangers had the necessary relationship with Plaintiff to establish a confidential relationship. Even if there had been, the City would still have immunity, since the TTCA doesn’t waive immunity for intentional torts. Nor does the TTCA waive immunity for Plaintiff’s equitble claims seeking money damages. Plaintiff further argued that using his picture in the old news story misappropriated his likeness and invaded his privacy for the financial benefit of the City. “How obscurely,” the court wondered, “embedding Appellant’s infant picture on a display honoring his great-grandfather would cause a reasonable person to believe any of the underlying facts necessary to give rise to an invasion-of-privacy-by-appropriation claim against the City or the Rangers …” (And TTCA still doesn’t waive immunity for intentional torts.)
The court puzzled again over Plaintiff’s inverse-condemnation claim, i.e., that using a photo of a photo of him as a baby took a property right without compensation. But he didn’t brief it, so the court dispensed with the necessity of dealing with it. As to the claims against the Rangers, Plaintiff didn’t show that the organization had anything to do with putting up the image or naming the course after Mr. Ditto. The trial court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice.
