soah hearing in Texas

2010See Rodriguez, 997 S.W.2d at 254 . (iv) The Department of Public Safety’s Rules Are Not Applicable to This Case Finally, the majority notes that, in failure cases such as this, the Department’s own rules require that the officer provide a report that “shall be sworn to” and must contain, among other things, the “officer’s sworn report.” 37 Tex. Admin.

2010See Rodriguez, 997 S.W.2d at 254 . (iv) The Department of Public Safety's Rules Are Not Applicable to This Case Finally, the majority notes that, in failure cases such as this, the Department's own rules require that the officer provide a report that "shall be sworn to" and must contain, among other things, the "officer's sworn report." 37 Tex. Admin.

2008See, e.g., SWEP-CO, 962 S.W.2d at 214 (section 2003.049(g) of the government code allows the public utility commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine if the ALJ’s findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence); Birenbaum, 891 S.W.2d at 338 (board may change credibility findings where change is supported by independent record evidence).

2008See, e.g., SWEP-CO, 962 S.W.2d at 214 (section 2003.049(g) of the government code allows the public utility commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine if the ALJ’s findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence); Birenbaum, 891 S.W.2d at 338 (board may change credibility findings where change is supported by independent record evidence).

2014See Janek v. Harlingen Family Dentistry, P.C., No. 03-13-00625-CV, 451 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Tex.App.-Austin 2014, no pet. h.).

2014See Janek v. Harlingen Family Dentistry, P.C., No. 03- 13-00625-CV; 2014 WL 5653501, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 30, 2014, no pet. h.).

2007See, e.g. , SWEPCO , 962 S.W.2d at 214 (section 2003.049(g) of the government code allows the public utility commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine if the ALJ's findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence); Birenbaum , 891 S.W.2d at 338 (board may change credibility findings where change is supported by independent record evidence).

2007See, e.g. , SWEPCO , 962 S.W.2d at 214 (section 2003.049(g) of the government code allows the public utility commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine if the ALJ's findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence); Birenbaum , 891 S.W.2d at 338 (board may change credibility findings where change is supported by independent record evidence).

2007See also Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993) (holding that subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point in proceedings); Liberty Mut.

2007See also Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993) (holding that subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point in proceedings); Liberty Mut.

2007See Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004); Volume Millwork, Inc. v. W.

2007See Harris County v. Sykes , 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004); Volume Millwork, Inc. v. W.

2003See Carrizales, 5 S.W.3d at 924; 40 Tex. Admin.

2003See Carrizales, 5 S.W.3d at 924; 40 Tex. Admin.

2025Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 149 (Tex. 2012). 2 The Commission asks this Court to take judicial notice of the final order resulting from the SOAH hearing which was adopted by the Commission at an open meeting on October 8, 2025.

2025Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 149 (Tex. 2012). 2 The Commission asks this Court to take judicial notice of the final order resulting from the SOAH hearing which was adopted by the Commission at an open meeting on October 8, 2025.

2023See Treadway v. Holder, 309 S.W.3d 780, 786 (Tex. App.––Austin 2010, pet. denied); Turner v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 806 , 823–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied);30 see also Hall, 508 S.W.3d at 238 (noting that the basic justification for ultra vires suits is to reassert control over a state agent who is exceeding the bounds of his granted authority or if his acts conflict with the law itself).

2023See Treadway v. Holder, 309 S.W.3d 780, 786 (Tex. App.––Austin 2010, pet. denied); Turner v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 806 , 823–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied);30 see also Hall, 508 S.W.3d at 238 (noting that the basic justification for ultra vires suits is to reassert control over a state agent who is exceeding the bounds of his granted authority or if his acts conflict with the law itself).

2023See Treadway v. Holder, 309 S.W.3d 780, 786 (Tex. App.––Austin 2010, pet. denied); Turner v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 806 , 823–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied);30 see also Hall, 508 S.W.3d at 238 (noting that the basic justification for ultra vires suits is to reassert control over a state agent who is exceeding the bounds of his granted authority or if his acts conflict with the law itself).

2023See Treadway v. Holder, 309 S.W.3d 780, 786 (Tex. App.––Austin 2010, pet. denied); Turner v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 806 , 823–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied);30 see also Hall, 508 S.W.3d at 238 (noting that the basic justification for ultra vires suits is to reassert control over a state agent who is exceeding the bounds of his granted authority or if his acts conflict with the law itself).

2021The court of appeals addressed only one, 6 holding that the ALJ erred in placing the burden of proof on Facility at the SOAH hearing and that this “legal and procedural error prejudiced [Facility’s] substantial rights.” 574 S.W.3d 436 , 443–44 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018).

2021The court of appeals addressed only one, 6 holding that the ALJ erred in placing the burden of proof on Facility at the SOAH hearing and that this “legal and procedural error prejudiced [Facility’s] substantial rights.” 574 S.W.3d 436 , 443–44 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018).

2015See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 .

2015See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 .

2013See id.; see also Flores v. Employees Retirement Sys., 74 S.W.3d 532, 545 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied) (noting that “when an agency adopts new policy in the course of a contested-case hearing without giving the parties pre-hearing notice, the parties may be deprived of procedural due process”).

2013See id.; see also Flores v. Employees Retirement Sys., 74 S.W.3d 532, 545 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied) (noting that “when an agency adopts new policy in the course of a contested-case hearing without giving the parties pre-hearing notice, the parties may be deprived of procedural due process”).

2013Comm’n, 131 S.W.3d 713, 732 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied) (explaining that “section 2003.049 of the government code allows the Commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence”).

2013Comm’n, 131 S.W.3d 713, 732 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied) (explaining that “section 2003.049 of the government code allows the Commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence”).

2011Dist., 247 S.W.3d at 715 (describing the Hospitals’ claims solely as APA section 2001.038 declaratory claims). 11 February 28 cutoff was invalid because it constituted an invalidly promulgated “rule” under the APA and was also substantively invalid because it conflicted with Former Rule § 355.8063 and the human resources code; and (2) HHSC had misapplied its appeal rule in denying them a SOAH hearing.

2011Dist., 247 S.W.3d at 715 (describing the Hospitals’ claims solely as APA section 2001.038 declaratory claims). 11 February 28 cutoff was invalid because it constituted an invalidly promulgated “rule” under the APA and was also substantively invalid because it conflicted with Former Rule § 355.8063 and the human resources code; and (2) HHSC had misapplied its appeal rule in denying them a SOAH hearing.

2009See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 431.048 (West Supp. 2008) (“A person may not use a detained or embargoed article, remove a detained or embargoed article from the premises, or dispose of a detained or embargoed article by sale or otherwise without permission of the commissioner, the authorized agent, or a court.”) (emphasis added). 9 See Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132, 136 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.).

2008See, e.g., SWEP-CO, 962 S.W.2d at 214 (section 2003.049(g) of the government code allows the public utility commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine if the ALJ’s findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence); Birenbaum, 891 S.W.2d at 338 (board may change credibility findings where change is supported by independent record evidence).

2008See, e.g., SWEP-CO, 962 S.W.2d at 214 (section 2003.049(g) of the government code allows the public utility commission to reevaluate the evidence admitted at a SOAH hearing to determine if the ALJ’s findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence); Birenbaum, 891 S.W.2d at 338 (board may change credibility findings where change is supported by independent record evidence).

2007The order dismissing the claims against the SOAH defendants was signed by the Honorable Suzanne Covington on May 9, 2005 .

2006See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334, 348 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ; see also Sgitcovich v. Sgitcovich, 150 Tex. 398 , 241 S.W.2d 142, 146 (1951) (“The requirement of due process of law is met if the notice prescribed affords the party a fair opportunity to appear and defend his interests.”). *760 Shifting Burden of Proof to Pierce at the SOAH Hearing Pierce asserts several related complaints regarding the burden of proof that was placed on him at the SOAH hearing.

2006See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334, 348 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ; see also Sgitcovich v. Sgitcovich, 150 Tex. 398 , 241 S.W.2d 142, 146 (1951) (“The requirement of due process of law is met if the notice prescribed affords the party a fair opportunity to appear and defend his interests.”). *760 Shifting Burden of Proof to Pierce at the SOAH Hearing Pierce asserts several related complaints regarding the burden of proof that was placed on him at the SOAH hearing.

2006See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334, 348 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ; see also Sgitcovich v. Sgitcovich, 150 Tex. 398 , 241 S.W.2d 142, 146 (1951) (“The requirement of due process of law is met if the notice prescribed affords the party a fair opportunity to appear and defend his interests.”). *760 Shifting Burden of Proof to Pierce at the SOAH Hearing Pierce asserts several related complaints regarding the burden of proof that was placed on him at the SOAH hearing.

2006See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334, 348 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ; see also Sgitcovich v. Sgitcovich, 150 Tex. 398 , 241 S.W.2d 142, 146 (1951) (“The requirement of due process of law is met if the notice prescribed affords the party a fair opportunity to appear and defend his interests.”). *760 Shifting Burden of Proof to Pierce at the SOAH Hearing Pierce asserts several related complaints regarding the burden of proof that was placed on him at the SOAH hearing.