non-jurisdictional requirement in Texas

2016As has been seen, however, the Supreme Court has provided a framework for analyzing whether the specific .requirements for a complaint contained in the TCHRA are jurisdictional, or “a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute [that] may result in the loss of a claim .’’Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359 .

2015See Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359 (“The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”).

2012Seizing upon this precedent, Justice Wil-lett stated in his concurring opinion in Roccaforte , “Under [Texas supreme court] precedent, dismissal delayed is sometimes dismissal denied,” even when the statute, “mandates strict compliance.” Roccaforte, 341 S.W.3d at 928-30 (J.

2012The statutory provision at issue in Rocca-forte v. Jefferson County, section 89.0041 of the local government code, also provides that "[i]f a person does not give notice as required by this section, the court in which the suit is pending shall dismiss the suit on a motion for dismissal made by the county or the county official.” 341 S.W.3d 919, 925 (Tex.2011); see Tex. Loc.

2012Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex.2004) ("The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim ....”); but see Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961-62 (Tex.1999) (noting that failure to comply with mandatory notice provision under worker’s compensation law did not require dismissal of action for judicial review); Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 468-69 (Tex.1992) (noting that purpose of mandatory, presuit notice requirement under deceptive trade practices act does not require dismissal of plaintiffs action when notice is

2012Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser , 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2003) ("The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim . . . ."); but see Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair , 984 S.W.2d 958, 961-62 (Tex. 1999) (noting that failure to comply with mandatory notice provision under worker's compensation law did not require dismissal of action for judicial review); Hines v. Hash , 843 S.W.2d 464, 468-69 (Tex. 1992) (noting that purpose of mandatory, presuit notice requirement under deceptive trade practices act does not require dismissal of plaintiff's action when

2012Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex.2004) ("The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim ....”); but see Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961-62 (Tex.1999) (noting that failure to comply with mandatory notice provision under worker’s compensation law did not require dismissal of action for judicial review); Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 468-69 (Tex.1992) (noting that purpose of mandatory, presuit notice requirement under deceptive trade practices act does not require dismissal of plaintiffs action when notice is

2012Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser , 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2003) ("The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim . . . ."); but see Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair , 984 S.W.2d 958, 961-62 (Tex. 1999) (noting that failure to comply with mandatory notice provision under worker's compensation law did not require dismissal of action for judicial review); Hines v. Hash , 843 S.W.2d 464, 468-69 (Tex. 1992) (noting that purpose of mandatory, presuit notice requirement under deceptive trade practices act does not require dismissal of plaintiff's action when

2004Our review of the record, however, reflects that the trial court correctly certified that Reyes's case "is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal." In Young v. State , the court of criminal appeals set forth the standard for waiver in cases where the defendant pleads guilty: Whether entered with or without an agreed recommendation of punishment by the State, a valid plea of guilty or nolo contendere "waives" or forfeits the right to appeal a claim of error only when the judgment of guilt was rendered independent of, and is not supported by, the error. 8 S.W.3d 656,

2004Our review of the record, however, reflects that the trial court correctly certified that Reyes’s case “is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” In Young v. State, the court of criminal appeals set forth the standard for waiver in cases where the defendant pleads guilty: Whether entered with or without an agreed recommendation of punishment by the State, a valid plea of guilty or nolo contendere “waives” or forfeits the right to appeal a claim of error only when the judgment of guilt was rendered independent of, and is not supported by, the error. 8 S.W.3d 656, 6

2015Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 , subsequent review by a district court, id. § 143.057(c), except 75–77 (Tex.2000); see also Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359 “on the grounds that the [hearing examiner] 2 was without (“The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction or that the order was by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure procured by fraud, collusion, or other unlawful means.” Id. § must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”).

2015Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 , subsequent review by a district court, id. § 143.057(c), except 75–77 (Tex.2000); see also Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359 “on the grounds that the [hearing examiner] 2 was without (“The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction or that the order was by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure procured by fraud, collusion, or other unlawful means.” Id. § must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”).

2019See City of DeSoto, 9 288 S.W.3d at 393 (noting that consequences may flow from a party’s failure to comply with a non-jurisdictional requirement when timely asserted).

2019See City of DeSoto, 288 S.W.3d at 393 (noting that consequences may flow from a party’s failure to comply with a non-jurisdictional requirement). *** The 45-day deadline to file suit for judicial review of an appeals-panel decision in section 410.252(a) of the Labor Code is not jurisdictional.

2025Prather v. AT&T, Inc., 847 F.3d 1097, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2017); accord Rahimi, 3 F.4th at 826 (noting the non-jurisdictional bar is “more lenient to relators”).

2025Prather v. AT&T, Inc., 847 F.3d 1097, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2017); accord Rahimi, 3 F.4th at 826 (noting the non-jurisdictional bar is “more lenient to relators”).

2023That language was added to the statute in the 2017 amendments,11 which came sixteen years after the Legislature removed expressly jurisdictional language from subsection (b) in 2001.12 The 2001 amendments to the statute—which deleted the phrase “extend the court’s jurisdiction” from subsection (b) and replaced it with “retain the suit on the court’s docket”13—demonstrate that a trial court’s failure to make the required findings is a non-jurisdictional error. “[W]e should always refrain from rewriting text that lawmakers chose, but we should be particularly unwilling to reinsert language that

2021Crosstex, 430 S.W.3d at 393 ; Frazier v. GNRC Realty, LLC, 476 S.W.3d 70, 73 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, pet. denied).

2021Rather, the supreme court in Crosstex, which is followed by Frazier, “[h]old[s] that [§] 150.002 imposes a mandatory, but not jurisdictional, filing requirement . . . [and t]hus . . . hold[s] that a defendant may waive its right to seek dismissal under the statute.” Crosstex, 430 S.W.3d at 393 (emphasis added); Frazier, 476 S.W.3d at 73 .

2021Crosstex, 430 S.W.3d at 393 ; Frazier v. GNRC Realty, LLC, 476 S.W.3d 70, 73 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, pet. denied).

2021Rather, the supreme court in Crosstex, which is followed by Frazier, “[h]old[s] that [§] 150.002 imposes a mandatory, but not jurisdictional, filing requirement . . . [and t]hus . . . hold[s] that a defendant may waive its right to seek dismissal under the statute.” Crosstex, 430 S.W.3d at 393 (emphasis added); Frazier, 476 S.W.3d at 73 .

2017See Burrell v. State, 492 S.W.2d 482, 483 (Tex. Crim.

2015Failing to meet “a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”); Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172, 180 (Tex. 2004) (“unable to agree” is 2 At the hearing, Mother’s counsel subsequently stated that Father “asked to have it registered at the last hearing.” 11 expressly required to be alleged in the condemnation petition, but while mandatory, it is not a jurisdictional requirement); Jones v. City of Mineola, 203 S.W.2d 1020, 1022-23 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1947

2015Failing to meet “a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”); Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172, 180 (Tex. 2004) (“unable to agree” is 2 At the hearing, Mother’s counsel subsequently stated that Father “asked to have it registered at the last hearing.” 11 expressly required to be alleged in the condemnation petition, but while mandatory, it is not a jurisdictional requirement); Jones v. City of Mineola, 203 S.W.2d 1020, 1022-23 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1947

2012Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2003) (“The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim . . . .”); but see Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961-62 (Tex. 1999) (noting that failure to comply with mandatory notice provision under worker’s compensation law did not require dismissal of action for judicial review); Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 468-69 (Tex. 1992) (noting that purpose of mandatory, presuit notice requirement under deceptive trade practices act does not require dismissal of plaintiff’s action when no

2008Id.

2008See id.

2004Our review of the record, however, reflects that the trial court correctly certified that Reyes’s case “is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” In Young v. State, the court of criminal appeals set forth the standard for waiver in cases where the defendant pleads guilty: Whether entered with or without an agreed recommendation of punishment by the State, a valid plea of guilty or nolo contendere “waives” or forfeits the right to appeal a claim of error only when the judgment of guilt was rendered independent of, and is not supported by, the error. 8 S.W.3d 656, 6

1990In Helms v. State , 484 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. Crim.

1986See, e.g., Vick v. George, 696 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Hughes v. Hughes, 407 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1966, no writ).

1986See, e.g., Vick v. George, 696 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Hughes v. Hughes, 407 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1966, no writ).