Ector County Com'rs Court v. Central Educ. Agency, 3-89-185-CV
| Decision Date | 14 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-89-185-CV,3-89-185-CV |
| Citation | 786 S.W.2d 449 |
| Parties | 59 Ed. Law Rep. 923 ., Appellants, v. CENTRAL EDUCATION AGENCY, et al., Appellees. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Margaret A. Cooper, Ode & Cooper, Austin, for appellants.
Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., George Warner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for Central Educ. Agency.
Charles Tighe, Corby Considine, Diann M. Hanson, Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, Midland, for Midland ISD.
Before SHANNON, C.J., and JONES, J.
The Ector County Commissioners Court (Ector County) approved a detachment and annexation of land from the Midland Independent School District (MISD) to the Ector County Independent School District (ECISD). The land was entirely within Midland County. The Central Education Agency (CEA) reversed the Ector County order. The district court affirmed the CEA's decision. We will reverse the trial court's judgment and dismiss the cause.
In 1983 a petition was filed with ECISD requesting the detachment of 4,186 acres of land from MISD. The petition was signed by a majority of the qualified voters residing within the territory. The petition was subsequently approved by ECISD and Ector County. See 1967 Tex.Gen.Laws ch 487, § 1, p. 1106 [Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 19.261, since amended]. MISD then appealed Ector County's order granting the detachment and annexation to the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner).
On December 7, 1984, the Commissioner entered an order (the "1984 order") reversing the decision of Ector County and denying the detachment and annexation. Ector County filed a motion for rehearing in response to the Commissioner's order. The parties then agreed to extend the time for the Commissioner's consideration of the motion for rehearing until the court of appeals and, subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court rendered their decisions in a factually similar case. See Upshur County Commissioners Court v. Central Education Agency, 697 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.App.1985), aff'd, 731 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.1987). The hearings officer entered orders confirming and approving this agreement on February 1, 1985, and again on October 17, 1985. After the Supreme Court rendered its decision on April 29, 1987, Ector County reurged its motion for rehearing, and the parties submitted briefs and oral argument. On December 19, 1987, the Commissioner withdrew his 1984 order and entered a new order (the "1987 order") reversing the decision of Ector County. No motions for rehearing were filed in response to the 1987 order.
On January 26, 1988, Ector County filed its petition in district court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's order. The CEA and MISD filed pleas to the jurisdiction, asserting that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit because Ector County had failed to file a motion for rehearing complaining of the 1987 order. The district court overruled the pleas to the jurisdiction and ultimately affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
At the outset, this Court must determine its jurisdiction and the district court's jurisdiction to entertain this suit. A motion for rehearing is a prerequisite to an administrative appeal and is jurisdictional in nature. Vandergriff v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 586 S.W.2d 841 (Tex.1979); Southern Union Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 690 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.App.1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a, § 16(c), (e) (Supp.1990). The motion for rehearing must be filed in response to the final order of the agency, Southern Union, 690 S.W.2d at 948, and the motion must "be sufficiently definite to apprise the regulatory agency of the error claimed and to allow the agency opportunity to correct the error or to prepare to defend it." Suburban Util. Corp. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 652 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.1983).
Ector County asserts that the district court had jurisdiction because a new motion for rehearing is not required when an agency denies an initial motion for rehearing, and that the Commissioner's 1987 order merely denied Ector County's motion for rehearing. In support of this proposition, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dolenz v. Texas State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...2001.145(a) of the APA may properly be the subject of a plea to the jurisdiction. See Ector County Comm'rs Court v. Central Educ. Agency, 786 S.W.2d 449, 541 (Tex.App.--Austin 1990, writ denied); Mahon v. Vandygriff, 578 S.W.2d 144, 147-48 (Tex.App.--Austin 1979, writ ref'd Furthermore, a m......
-
Terrell v. Comm'r of Educ. Michael L. Williams
...to file a second motion for rehearing following the agency's modified order."); see also Ector Cnty. Comm'rs Court v. Central Educ. Agency, 786 S.W.2d 449, 450-51 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) (rejecting argument that no new motion for rehearing required because orders "reached the s......
-
Cisneros v. State Board for Educator Certification, No. 03-05-00657-CV (Tex. App. 12/29/2006)
...order had been modified and therefore was not the agency's final order." Id. at 949. Ector County Commissioners Court v. Central Education Agency, 786 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. App.-Austin 1990, writ denied), involved a dispute between Ector County and the Commissioner of Education relating to a dec......
-
Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Public Utility Com'n of Texas
...§ 16(c), (e); Vandergriff v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 586 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex.1979); Ector County Comm'rs Court v. Central Educ. Agency, 786 S.W.2d 449, 450 (Tex.App.--Austin 1990, writ denied). HL & P timely filed a motion for rehearing as to the June 20th order. Subsequently, the Co......