contested hearing in Texas

2015Gonzales, 850 S.W.2d at 675 .

2015Gonzales, 850 S.W.2d at 675 .

2010App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

2010App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

2010Stinson, 286 S.W.3d at 82 .

2010Stinson , 286 S.W.3d at 82 .

2010Compliance with Anders v. California Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he has "diligently searched the record . . . and [has] researched the law applicable to the facts and issues" and in his professional opinion, "no reversible error is reflected by the record." After discussing the contested hearing, the punishment assessed, and applicable law, counsel concludes that "no arguable factual or evidentiary issues are disclosed by the record in this case which would amount to r

2010Compliance with Anders v. California Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he has "diligently searched the record . . . and [has] researched the law applicable to the facts and issues" and in his professional opinion, "no reversible error is reflected by the record." After discussing the contested hearing, the punishment assessed, and applicable law, counsel concludes that "no arguable factual or evidentiary issues are disclosed by the record in this case which would amount to re

1999The contested instruction stated: "You are further instructed that if a Defendant indulges in the use of drugs to such an extent that he thereby makes himself more susceptible to the influence of intoxicating liquor than he otherwise would have been and by reason thereof becomes intoxicated from the recent use of intoxicating liquor, he would be in the same position as though his intoxication was produced by the use of intoxicating liquor alone." Id.

1999The contested instruction stated: “You are further instructed that if a Defendant indulges in the use of drugs to such an extent that he thereby makes himself more susceptible to the influence of intoxicating liquor than he otherwise would have been and by reason thereof becomes intoxicated from the recent use of intoxicating liquor, he would be in the same position as though his intoxication was produced by the use of intoxicating liquor alone.” Id.

1996Relying on Blount and Saida Towers, we stated in Testoni that we have “required all statutory causes of action arising on a legislatively created claim to be brought before the agency as part of a contested hearing.” Id.

1996Relying on Blount and Saida Towers , we stated in Testoni that we have "required all statutory causes of action arising on a legislatively created claim to be brought before the agency as part of a contested hearing." Id.

2025Morales, 241 S.W.3d at 516 .

2024Higgins, 257 S.W.3d at 686-87 .

2024Id. at 2 .

2023Additionally, the question of timeliness goes to the jurisdictional prerequisites needed to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction which can be addressed. 14 that “[a]n applicant or a party to a contested hearing may not file suit against the district under Section 36.251 if a request for rehearing was not filed on time.” Id. § 36.413(c).

2019Jacobs’s attorney again attempted to inform the judge the evidence was “not adequate” to support the judgment, but the judge cut her off and replied, “this is done.” By finding the allegations true and revoking Jacobs’s probation without hearing any actual evidence, the trial court deprived Jacobs of the minimum requirements of due process, including her right to disclosure of the evidence against her, an opportunity to be heard, present evidence and cross- examine witnesses, and “a neutral and detached hearing body.” See Tapia, 462 S.W.3d at 41–42 (citing Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 786 ).

2019Id.

2019Jacobs’s attorney again attempted to inform the judge the evidence was “not adequate” to support the judgment, but the judge cut her off and replied, “this is done.” By finding the allegations true and revoking Jacobs’s probation without hearing any actual evidence, the trial court deprived Jacobs of the minimum requirements of due process, including her right to disclosure of the evidence against her, an opportunity to be heard, present evidence and cross- examine witnesses, and “a neutral and detached hearing body.” See Tapia, 462 S.W.3d at 41–42 (citing Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 786 ).

2018Cf. Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 , 683–84, 694 (Tex. 2012) (holding that the trial court’s inclusion of a question on the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was harmless because the jury answered “no” regarding the defendant’s negligence).

2018The parties agreed that the Planned Parenthood entities “sufficiently demonstrated the injury-in-fact and causal connection components of standing,” id. at 740 , as the contested rule“virtually eliminated” the visits that Planned Parenthood would otherwise receive from TWHP-covered clients and reduced the entities’ revenues.

2018Id.

2016Second, in Garza, we applied precedent from the Texas Supreme Court, this court, and other Texas appellate courts to conclude that a temporary injunction order that failed to meet the requirements of Rule 683 was void, not voidable. 126 S.W.3d at 271 - 73.

2015See Larson, 368 S.W.3d at 798 ; A.W., 302 S.W.3d at 930 .

2015Stewart v. Blain was wrongly decided, but even if it were not, the language here has a significant difference.. . . . . . . . . . 8 CONCLUSION and PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alford v. Krum, 671 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 Criswell v. European Crossroads S

2015Stewart v. Blain was wrongly decided, but even if it were not, the language here has a significant difference.. . . . . . . . . . 8 CONCLUSION and PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alford v. Krum, 671 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 Criswell v. European Crossroads S

2015Stewart v. Blain was wrongly decided, but even if it were not, the language here has a significant difference.. . . . . . . . . . 8 CONCLUSION and PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alford v. Krum, 671 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 Criswell v. European Crossroads S