context of an administrative hearing (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

context of an administrative hearing in Texas

5 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2008–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Martinez v. Texas State Board of Medical Examinersgreen
texapp · 1972 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025
2 sentences

2025Exam’rs, 476 S.W.2d 400, 405 (Tex. Civ.

2019Exam’rs, 476 S.W.2d 400, 405 (Tex. Civ.

22
TSP Development, Ltd. v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissiongreen
texapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Conservation Comm'n , 16 S.W.3d 148 , 152-153 (Tex. App-Austin 2000, no pet.) (applying Quick's interpretation of the general savings clause in the context of an administrative rule).

2008Conservation Comm 'n, 16 S.W.3d 148, 152-153 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (applying Quick's interpretation ofthe general savings clause in the context of an administrative rule).

12
BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. v. Martinez Environmental Groupgreen
texapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015Group, 93 S.W.3d 570, 578 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied) (describing the purposes of a motion for rehearing in the context of an administrative hearing).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Crosstex Energy Services, L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc. green
tex · 2014
1 sentence

2015The Department argues persuasively that an ALJ should be permitted the first opportunity to correct its mistakes in the same fashion as a trial judge, but we cannot ignore the plain language of section 524.041(a).7 See Crosstex, 430 S.W.3d at 389 .

12015–2015

Where else courts name it

CA 8 (1985–2019) TX 5 (2008–2025) NM 2 (2012–2013) NE 2 (1998–1998) NY 2 (2010–2012) OR 2 (1980–2020) IL 2 (2015–2015) CT 2 (1997–2001) MD 2 (2006–2014)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check