Tex. Codes » Local Government Code · TITLE 7. REGULATION OF LAND USE, STRUCTURES, BUSINESSES, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES · SUBTITLE A. MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY · CHAPTER 214. MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF HOUSING AND OTHER STRUCTURES
Texas Codes

Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 214.0012 (2026)

Judicial Review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 214.0012. JUDICIAL REVIEW. (a) Any owner, lienholder, or mortgagee of record of property jointly or severally aggrieved by an order of a municipality issued under Section 214.001 may file in district court a verified petition setting forth that the decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. The petition must be filed by an owner, lienholder, or mortgagee within 30 calendar days after the respective dates a copy of the final decision of the municipality is personally delivered to them, mailed to them by first class mail with certified return receipt requested, or delivered to them by the United States Postal Service using signature confirmation service, or such decision shall become final as to each of them upon the expiration of each such 30 calendar day period.

(b) On the filing of the petition, the court may issue a writ of certiorari directed to the municipality to review the order of the municipality and shall prescribe in the writ the time within which a return on the writ must be made, which must be longer than 10 days, and served on the relator or the relator's attorney.

(c) The municipality may not be required to return the original papers acted on by it, but it is sufficient for the municipality to return certified or sworn copies of the papers or of parts of the papers as may be called for by the writ.

(d) The return must concisely set forth other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified.

(e) The issuance of the writ does not stay proceedings on the decision appealed from.

(f) Appeal in the district court shall be limited to a hearing under the substantial evidence rule. The court may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the decision brought up for review.

(g) Costs may not be allowed against the municipality.

(h) If the decision of the municipality is affirmed or not substantially reversed but only modified, the district court shall allow to the municipality all attorney's fees and other costs and expenses incurred by it and shall enter a judgment for those items, which may be entered against the property owners, lienholders, or mortgagees as well as all persons subject to the proceedings before the municipality.

(i) An appeal under this section for an action in which a municipality with a population of 500,000 or more is a party is governed by the procedures for accelerated appeals in civil cases under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court shall render its final order or judgment with the least possible delay.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 836, Sec. 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 413, Sec. 12, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 370 (S.B. 352), Sec. 4, eff. June 15, 2007.

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1273 (H.B. 36), Sec. 4, eff. June 14, 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2010 · leading case: Gene E. Bates v. the City of Beaumont (Tex. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gene E. Bates v. the City of Beaumont (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “Background This proceeding began as a suit by Bates for injunction and temporary restraining order against the City of Beaumont ("the City"). In his original petition, Bates sought to restrain the City from demolishing his commercial property located at 2510 Calder.”
Juan Manuel Tellez v. City of Socorro (Tex. App. 2009). “--Dallas 1996, no writ)(holding that under Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 214.0012 (a), where appellant failed to request writ of certiorari and no evidence existed in record, the presumption of validity required that the order be upheld).”
John Fox v. Joe Wardy, Mayor, Susan Austin, Jose A. Lozano, John F. Cook, Daniel S. Power, Paul J. Escobar, Vivian Rojas, Anthony Cobos (Tex. App. 2010). “We do so because Fox appears to be appealing from the City Council's condemnation resolution against his apartment building as his pleadings allege that the tort action resulted from the condemnation proceeding brought by the City Council, that his complaints were denied or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.