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.
16 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. Central Education Agencygreen2 sentences1999This Court, in Burke v. Central Texas Education Agency , 725 S.W.2d 393, 397 (Tex. App.--Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.), explained that the motion for rehearing must state for each contention of error: "(1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests." Burke , 725 S.W.2d at 397 . 1999This Court, in Burke v. Central Texas Education Agency , 725 S.W.2d 393, 397 (Tex. App.--Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.), explained that the motion for rehearing must state for each contention of error: "(1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests." Burke , 725 S.W.2d at 397 . | 4 | 5 |
BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. v. Martinez Environmental Groupgreen2 sentences2025“The motion must set forth: (1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests.” Id. 2017After noting the purpose of a motion for rehearing, the court explained that in order to preserve an error for judicial review, the motion for rehearing “must set forth: (1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests.” Id. (citing Burke v. Cent. | 2 | 4 |
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Quintanagreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com’n v. Quintana, 225 S.W.3d 200, 203-204 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2005, pet. denied) (stating that to preserve an issue for judicial review, the plaintiff’s motion for rehearing before the agency “must set forth: (1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests”). 2025To preserve an issue for judicial review, plaintiff’s motion for rehearing before the agency “must set forth: (1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests” E.g., Quintana, 225 S.W.3d at 203 . | 2 | 2 |
Central Power & Light Co./Cities of Alice v. Public Utility Commissiongreen2 sentences2002Comm'n , 36 S.W.3d 547, 569 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied); Burke v. Central Educ. 2002Comm’n, 36 S.W.3d 547, 569 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied); Burke v. Central Educ. | 2 | 2 |
Upper Trinity Regional Water District v. National Wildlife Federationgreen2 sentences2025Id.; Upper Trinity Id. § 7.067(a-1). 2023To preserve an issue for review, the motion must set out “(1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests.” Upper Trinity Reg’l Water Dist. v. National Wildlife Fed’n, 514 S.W.3d 855, 870 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Suburban Utility Corp. v. Public Utility Commission
green
2 sentences2022Id. (citing Burke v. Central Educ. 2014The fair notice standard of section 2001.45 “requires the complaining party to set forth succinctly (1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency that the complaining party asserts was error; and (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests.” Id. at 821 (citing Burke v. Cent. | 2 | 2014–2022 |
City of Amarillo v. Railroad Com'n of Texas
green
1 sentence2015City of Amarillo, 894 S.W.2d at 496-97 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |