Central Educ. Agency v. Burke
| Decision Date | 04 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4959,C-4959 |
| Citation | 711 S.W.2d 7 |
| Parties | 32 Ed. Law Rep. 1141 CENTRAL EDUCATION AGENCY and Plano Independent School District, Petitioners, v. John T. BURKE, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., George Arlon Warner, Jr., Austin, Henry D. Akin, Jr., Akin & Akin, Lynn Bailey Miller, Akin & Akin, Dallas, for petitioners.
Leonard J. Schwartz, Schwartz, Waterman, Fickman & Van Os, Deats, Mr. B. Craig, Fickman, Van Os, Waterman, Dean & Moore, Austin, for respondent.
This action began as an administrative appeal brought by John T. Burke pursuant to the Term Contract Nonrenewal Act (TCNA), Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §§ 21.201-21.211 (Vernon Supp.1986), in which Burke sought review of a decision by the board of trustees of the Plano I.S.D. to not renew his teaching contract with the district. The Commissioner of Education of the State of Texas affirmed the decision of nonrenewal made by the district's board of trustees. Burke brought suit in the Travis County District Court seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. The trial court granted a summary judgment for the Central Education Agency (CEA) 1 and the Plano I.S.D. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. 701 S.W.2d 306. We grant the applications for writ of error, and pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 483, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause to that court for review of the sole point of error submitted by Burke in his brief.
The only issue presented by the motion for summary judgment and response in the trial court was whether Burke's motion for rehearing, filed with the State Board of Education, was sufficiently specific to preserve his arguments for review by the trial court. The trial court held that Burke's motion for rehearing was not sufficiently specific to preserve his arguments for review and rendered summary judgment in favor of the CEA and school district. The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment on grounds neither raised in the trial court in opposition to the CEA's summary judgment motion, nor presented to the court of appeals.
An appellate court is not authorized to reverse a trial court's judgment in the absence of properly assigned error. State Board of Insurance v. Westland Film Industries, 705 S.W.2d 695, 696 (Tex.1986). Issues not expressly presented to the trial court may not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal of a summary judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 675 (Tex.1979). See also Tex.R.Civ.P. 166-A(c).
In its motion for summary judgment in the trial court, the CEA argued that Burke's motion for rehearing, filed with the State Board of Education, was insufficiently specific to preserve Burke's allegations of error for review by the trial court. In reply, Burke argued only that his motion was sufficiently specific under the standard set forth in our opinion in Suburban Utility Corporation v. Public Utility Commission, 652 S.W.2d 358 (Tex.1983). The trial court rendered summary judgment for the CEA and Plano I.S.D.
In his appellate brief before the court of appeals, Burke presented only one point of error, which related solely to Burke's contention that his motion for rehearing was sufficiently specific. Despite the narrow scope of Burke's appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's rendition of summary judgment, holding that section 16(e) of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA), Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a (Vernon Supp.1986), which makes a motion for rehearing a prerequisite to an appeal from a final agency decision or order, does not apply to administrative appeals brought pursuant to the TCNA. 701 S.W.2d at 314.
Burke argues that the court of appeals properly determined, sua sponte, the applicability of APTRA to appeals in TCNA ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., C-9556
... ... at § 1. The Texas Water Quality Board was designated the primary agency to effectuate the Disposal Act's purpose. Id. at § 4(f). Like the Air ... See Filmstrips and Slides, Inc. v. Dallas Central Appraisal Dist., 806 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, no writ) (property ... See Central Educ. Agency v. Burke, 711 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.1986) (per curiam); American ... ...
-
Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 16–0328
...("The court of appeals may not reverse a trial court's judgment in the absence of properly assigned error."); Cent. Educ. Agency v. Burke , 711 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam) ("An appellate court is not authorized to reverse a trial court's judgment in the absence of properly assigned......
-
Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey
...therefore, will not constitute grounds for reversal when they are raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Central Educ. Agency v. Burke, 711 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex.1986) (applicability of provision of APTRA to appeal of agency decision not fundamental error); Allison v. Nat'l Union Fire I......
-
MPG Petroleum, Inc. v. Crosstex CCNG Marketing, Ltd., No. 13-05-609-CV (Tex. App. 10/5/2006)
... ... v. Underwriters Indem. Gen. Agency, Inc., 56 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet ... v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex. 1990) (citing Central" Educ. Agency v. Burke, 711 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex. 1986)) ... \xC2" ... ...