Ac Interests, L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 543 S.W.3d 703

AC Interests timely filed a petition in Travis County seeking judicial review of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s denial of emission-reduction credits, but served citation on the Commission 58 days after filing (statute required service within 30 days).
Texas Health & Safety Code § 382.032 provides the appeal procedure: a person "may" appeal by filing a petition (a), the petition "must be filed within 30 days" (b), and citation "must be accomplished within 30 days" after filing (c); later subsections impose duties to prosecute with diligence and allow dismissal if abandoned.
The primary legal question is whether subsection (c)’s 30-day service-of-citation requirement is mandatory (a condition precedent that bars the appeal if not met) or directory (non-jurisdictional, no automatic bar).
The dissenting opinion (Justice Boyd) argues that the Code Construction Act defines "must" as creating a condition precedent, that service of citation is jurisdictional and constitutionally required, and that failure to comply should result in dismissal of the appeal.
The dissent emphasizes textual/contextual clues: the Legislature’s use of "may/must/shall," the absence of a good-cause exception for filing or service (but existence of one later), statutory aims of prompt review, and principles favoring strict construction of waivers of sovereign immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §382.032(c)’s 30-day service-of-citation requirement is mandatory (condition precedent) such that late service bars judicial review	AC Interests contends timely filing satisfied the appeal prerequisite and late service should not bar the appeal; filing alone is enough to "appeal" under (a)	TCEQ (and dissent) argue §382.032(c)’s "must" creates a condition precedent; timely service is jurisdictional and failure requires dismissal	Justice Boyd (dissent) would hold the service deadline is mandatory and failure to meet it bars the appeal (dissenting position summarized here)

Centex Corp. v. Dalton, 840 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. 1992) (definition and effect of a condition precedent)
Chisholm v. Bewley Mills, 287 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. 1956) (no absolute test for mandatory vs. directory provisions)
Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001) (consider plain meaning, whole act, object, and consequences when deciding mandatory vs. directory)
Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2009) (absence of penalty does not automatically render "must" directory)
Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958 (Tex. 1999) (when silent on consequences, look to statute’s purpose)
Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (service of citation essential to confer district court jurisdiction)
Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2014) (avoid interpretations that render statutory language meaningless)
BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. 2017) (statutory time periods typically do not permit substantial compliance)
McKanna v. Edgar, 388 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1965) (strict compliance required for service rules; failure invalidates attempted service)