Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2014 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc.green2 sentences2014Cf. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 198 (Tex.2004) ("independent right to judicial review in section 2001.171 of the APA ... provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity”). . 2010In Mega Child Care, the supreme court held that the administrative decision to revoke a child-care facility license was subject to judicial review pursuant to section 2001.171 where the applicable section of the human resources code governing revocations of child-care facility licenses was “currently silent with regard to the availability of judicial review.” Id. | 12 | 13 |
Carrizales v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Servicesgreen2 sentences2009By its plain language, section 2001.171 allows for judicial review 5 Prior to the supreme court’s holding in Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004), this Court had “repeatedly held that [section 2001.171 of the APA] is a procedural provision that does not confer independent subject matter jurisdiction on the district court.” See id. at 173 (quoting Eldercare Props., Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. denied)); see also Carrizales v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 2009By its plain language, section 2001.171 allows for judicial review 5 Prior to the supreme court’s holding in Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004), this Court had “repeatedly held that [section 2001.171 of the APA] is a procedural provision that does not confer independent subject matter jurisdiction on the district court.” See id. at 173 (quoting Eldercare Props., Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. denied)); see also Carrizales v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., | 5 | 5 |
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board v. Funderburkgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 198 (Tex.2004) (right to judicial review in section 2001.171 of the APA "provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity" because "the Legislature necessarily understood that state agencies would be sued in court by persons exercising that right"); Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. Funderburk, 188 S.W.3d 233, 235-36 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. granted, judgm't vacated w.r.m.) (statutory remedy provided by Texas Commission on Human Rights Act necessarily provides limited waiver of soverei 2007See, e.g., Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc. , 145 S.W.3d 170, 198 (Tex. 2004) (right to judicial review in section 2001.171 of the APA "provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity" because "the Legislature necessarily understood that state agencies would be sued in court by persons exercising that right"); Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. Funderburk , 188 S.W.3d 233, 235-36 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006, pet. granted, judgm't vacated w.r.m.) (statutory remedy provided by Texas Commission on Human Rights Act necessarily provides limited waiver of so | 4 | 4 |
City of Port Arthur v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.green2 sentences2009Clinging to outdated precedent, the majority asserts that its holding is consistent with this Court's prior holding in City of Port Arthur v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company , 13 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, no pet.), "that a non-party has no statutory right to judicial review of a decision by the Public Utility Commission." Slip op. at 7. 2009Clinging to outdated precedent, the majority asserts that its holding is consistent with this Court’s prior holding in City of Port Arthur v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 13 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.), “that a non-party has no statutory right to judicial review of a decision by the Public Utility Commission.” Op. at 282. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Oakleygreen2 sentences2008See State v. Oakley , 227 S.W.3d 58, 62 (Tex. 2007); see also Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc. , 145 S.W.3d 170, 198 (Tex. 2004) (right to judicial review in section 2001.171 of the APA "provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity" because "the Legislature necessarily understood that state agencies would be sued in court by persons exercising that right"). 2008See State v. Oakley, 227 S.W.3d 58, 62 (Tex.2007); see also Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 198 (Tex.2004) (right to judicial review in section 2001.171 of the APA “provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity” because “the Legislature necessarily understood that state agencies would be sued in court by persons exercising that right”). | 3 | 3 |
Stanley Bacon, Jr. v. Texas Historical Commissiongreen2 sentences2014See Bacon v. Tex. Historical Comm'n, 411 S.W.3d 161, 180 (Tex. App. -- Austin 2013, no pet.). 2014See Bacon v. Tex. Historical Comm’n, 411 S.W.3d 161, 180 (Tex.App.-Austin 2013, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Foygreen2 sentences2009Sys. v. Foy, 896 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ denied); Southwest Airlines v. Texas High Speed Rail Auth., 867 S.W.2d 154, 158 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, writ denied); Motorola, Inc. v. Bullock, 586 S.W.2d 706, 708-09 (Tex. Civ. 2000See Carrizales, 5 S.W.3d at 925 ; Foy, 896 S.W.2d at 317 . | 1 | 2 |
Rusk State Hospital v. Blackgreen1 sentence2014See Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 95-96 (Tex.2012); see also Texas State Bd. of Veterinary Med. | 1 | 1 |
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authoritygreen1 sentence2009Sys. v. Foy, 896 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ denied); Southwest Airlines v. Texas High Speed Rail Auth., 867 S.W.2d 154, 158 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, writ denied); Motorola, Inc. v. Bullock, 586 S.W.2d 706, 708-09 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Motorola, Inc. v. Bullockgreen1 sentence2009Sys. v. Foy, 896 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ denied); Southwest Airlines v. Texas High Speed Rail Auth., 867 S.W.2d 154, 158 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, writ denied); Motorola, Inc. v. Bullock, 586 S.W.2d 706, 708-09 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
ElderCare Properties, Inc. v. Texas Department of Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2009By its plain language, section 2001.171 allows for judicial review 5 Prior to the supreme court’s holding in Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004), this Court had “repeatedly held that [section 2001.171 of the APA] is a procedural provision that does not confer independent subject matter jurisdiction on the district court.” See id. at 173 (quoting Eldercare Props., Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. denied)); see also Carrizales v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 2009By its plain language, section 2001.171 allows for judicial review 5 Prior to the supreme court’s holding in Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004), this Court had “repeatedly held that [section 2001.171 of the APA] is a procedural provision that does not confer independent subject matter jurisdiction on the district court.” See id. at 173 (quoting Eldercare Props., Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. denied)); see also Carrizales v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.