Purolator Armored, Inc. v. Railroad Commission

year for the academic payment of salaries prior years. ancillary

1981-82 and injunction granted by this court

temporary until the issuance of

is continued force of an or the court’s mandate of error. The trial

application writ appellants

court is directed to bond, rule 684 of the

proper provided by

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. ARMORED, INC.,

PUROLATOR

Appellant, OF

The RAILROAD COMMISSION

TEXAS, al., Appellees. et 13771, 18012.

Nos.

Austin. 16, 1983.

Nov. 6252-13a, (Supp. art. §§

Stat.Ann. 911b, 1982); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. 20§ that we dismiss

The moved Commission or affirm the Purolator’s below, agency theory on a review not before us for because validly in the dis- was in evidence not introduced and, brought not consequently, trict court state- this Court as of a forward to original or as an exhibit. ment of facts Mauro, Wendler, Sarrett, Sarrett & Ben Instead, duly agency certified Austin, for appellant. court and transmit- in the district authority form on ted to in its us Fraser, White, Gen., Atty. Douglas Mark judge’s trial Gen., Austin, Atty. Asst.- The Railroad supplemental included in of Texas. Com’n agency script. The order directs Sedberry, Thomas Craig F. & Small in its record be transmitted to Court Werkenthin, Austin, Fargo Ar- Wells to” “pursuant form Tex.R.Civ.P. Corp. mored Service parties Ann. 428 (Supp.1982). accuracy completeness and dispute not SHANNON, Before and GAM- POWERS record. MAGE, agency JJ.

POWERS, Justice. upon to consider are thus called We must be intro agency whether the Armored, Purolator Inc. sued duced evidence in district Commission judicial Railroad review of final exhibit, appeals taken from the agency’s granting final order Wells under AP- agencies orders of administrative Fargo a cer- Corporation Armored Service autho judicial TRA when the review necessity. tificate of convenience and other than rized that statute is Fargo certificate authorizes to trans- Wells been previously de novo. The issue has coin, port and articles currency, similar be- applica In the single determined in Texas. points tween in 143 Texas counties. After jurisdiction, in from another record, ble decision a review based language statutory almost same volving fi- affirmed Commission’s held present appeal, it was nal order material to appealed and Purolator need not be intro Court. Administrative and Tex- Procedure reach the same duced in evidence.1 We Register (APTRA), Act Tex.Rev.Civ. Nebraska, Supreme admin- Maurer v. are taken from an that where Weaver, Court, pursu- District Neb. 328 N.W.2d istrative to the 84-917, (1982), provision, provisions certi- construed a found ant to the act, which re- prepared State’s administrative fied quired agency “prepare court shall be considered transmit transmitted pro- shall, to the court a certified ob- to be before unless ” ceedings had it .... rec- jected parties, one of the be considered reviewing formally so ord was “transmitted” to the the need of without petition hearing plaintiffs After on court. offering into evidence. the record review, court discovered that (emphasis We at 750 N.W.2d “marked record had been agree holding, un- but find with evidence,” whereupon the court dis- offered necessary minor somewhat strained a petition theory it had missed the it states: rationale where of the Court’s “nothing upon.” before it 84- which § It is the record certify, requires prepare, 917(4) reversed the of Nebraska effect, the cause with and transmit order of dismissal remanded instructions, agency, preparing holding the certified record and case, present At the times material conclusion and will overrule Commis- procedure specifically statute rule of sion’s motion. by which the prescribed the manner au The manner of made a document record should be Court of so as to be case “is other than present thorized by review authorized judicial the further in novo,” applicable scope and the by de provided 20.3 That statute APTRA § the substantial evidence by review any judg- final that from merely “[ajppeals Therefore, in the judicial rule.2 review may by court taken ment of the district the record of present upon case is based for in in the manner any party governed by AP- agency proceedings ” (emphasis generally civil actions .... add- 19(d) together applicable TRA § ed). 19(e). Consequently, the APTRA § application which has no discussion follows Texas Rules of Civil Proce judicial of administrative suits for review the in which manner govern dure “in agency where the authorized taken to the Court final orders are Texas generally.”4 novo. cases R.Civ.P.Ann. by review is trial de civil manner of conclude, tern, (Tex.1981). court,” “transmitting 616 S.W.2d 179 We the rec- it to the offers therefore, present to review the suit ord in evidence. (emphasis to Wells There issuance of a certificate 328 N.W.2d at Commission’s fiction, especially Fargo requires review. was need to resort the the same manner of pointed previously out that since the Court had require did not introduc- the Nebraska statute 19(d) of APTRA been amended 3. Section evidence, record in but re- tion the be filed provide the record shall that quired judicial the record of the review on and admitted clerk and offered with the district the contents of as transmitted to 19, Act of June as an exhibit. into evidence law, by they prescribed are in which were 1434, required 1983, 1. We are H.B. § 19(d)(1), is “the entire record of APTRA that § present appeal the effect of the to consider the proceeding APTRA review.” See under amendment. 13(e). opinion it is indicated In the Maurer § transcript was "filed” in the district that were, of Civil Procedure Texas Rules of statute, by The Nebraska court govern proceedings designed APTRA, like does not that ordinary where the trial court civil case an court, except by “filed” the district jurisdiction given byit the com- exercises the statutory necessary implication re- from the of the State of mon law and Constitution agency prepare quirement and trans- that statutory 5, 1, purely But the art. §§ reviewing mit given to review jurisdiction agencies, a contrary administrative final orders of to the lan 2.These statements are 911b, given the numerous power 19 and guage § APTRA art. § to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. pertaining to the several judi provides proceedings constitutive statutes That statute proceedings, special agencies and to other final orders cial Commission’s statutory special quires the court to exercise as other civil shall be “tried and determined way, special in these power in a of decision and that “the causes” in the district may of Procedure the Texas Rules proof plaintiff, who burden of shall rest contradictory of the even preponderance irrelevant and of evidence must show Legisla- proceeding directed manner unreason are orders] the [Commission’s jurisdiction. conferring For exam- (emphasis unjust ture to it or them.” able and added) exer- League ple, APTRA forbids Industrial Traffic v. very except 13,380, fact-finding power Commission, Tex.App.— cise No. Railroad Austin, alleges 7, (not published), September yet instance where limited agency record does judi prove statutory provision wishes we held irregularity novo, procedural that oc- required and that the not reflect cial review trial de proceedings. APTRA inapplicable, curred substantial evidence ordinary Consequently, suit § review of Commission’s suits for 19, of Civil Texas Rules ratemaking power. APTRA Notwith under exercise of its (Rules 911b, applicable facts to issuable language Procedure standing depositions 215c), through evidence and has reviewed on Court of Texas jury through 215c), in court (Rules record, the sub and under basis of through rule, (Rules 216 orders the Commis stantial evidence contradictory 295) inapplicable through granting certificates.... sion motor-carrier by AP- Sys- proceeding authorized manner Bus Railroad Commission Continental grounds on several with conclusion (1967), gree “[t]he and, shall consist of a reasoning by reached. necessary where statement First, out- reasoning and conclusion of facts.” that an appel- From axiom inherently contradictory lined above are may late court not consider matter manner review established record,” “outside the infer that the one eases review is based validly of Appeals may consider record instead of trial de record unless it forms 19(d)(1), agen- Under APTRA novo. the appellate transcript or the state- to transmit cy ment of then argue facts. One permitted “within the time not be included answer, record of the ... entire (1) appellate transcript for two reasons: review” and under proceeding “[t]he to include intended permit subsequent correc- “proceedings may require those documents that reflect court,” 376 in the trial Tex.R.Civ.P.Ann. Nothing tions or additions to the record.” when 379 (Supp.1982), and authorizes record suggests in APTRA “original to be sent to Court papers” any be at time “introduced evidence.” the trial judge’s it therefore contem- Indeed, be an anom- provision such a would plates only “pro- refer documents which prohibits APTRA district aly because court”; ceedings in trial (2) agency receiving from court evidence records are often too to be conve- large alleged procedural except irregulari- matter niently affordably included in a tran- ties, within them- script, suggesting Legislature selves, in the agency which are not included probably intended the record be “intro- record transmitted the district court. might duced in evidence” in it jurisdiction very § conveniently inexpensively be transmit- by the district court AP- upon conferred ted to the as an Appeals Court TRA, by de where review other than (Supp. “exhibit.” 379 novo, regard- of law questions is limited to 1982). The agency being thus dis- record final order should ing agency’s whether the qualified from in the appellate inclusion legal reversed one or more of six be transcript, is permitted one to conclude that specified 19(e)(l)-(6), in APTRA errors the record may validly be transmitted to be and these are to determined questions Appeals solely by Court of means of the from shows solely what record remaining one vehicle by which doc- conducting on its face. this manner uments reach the Appeals— case, ordinary review in the agency introduction of record in evi- pow- fact-finding district court exercises no dence in the district court so that it be it. directed evidence adduced before er at transmitted to the Court of under “original Rule 379 as exhibit.” We disa- From this one is forced to conclude that agen TRA in based orders of an administrative cases where review is governed by jurisdiction giv cy, special record and of a substantial the exercise statute, plain by governing evidence It is not all ac rule. therefore it “the rules civil en applica- generally apply only they the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are far as are tions in so every proceeding objec purposes derogation ble to in the district courts of not in of the State, even in non-criminal cases. v. Rail tives of the statute.” Standard Oil Co. 633, 215 S.W.2d road Commission promulgated by The rules 1948, n.r.e.). (Tex.Civ.App. Consequently, 636 of Texas result from its exercise of a limited special such a statute directs that may only power, proce rules it establish proceeding civil conducted “as other dure “not inconsistent with laws Const, thereby causes,” every not each State.” of Tex. Art. Tex.Rev. special proceeding, incorporated 1731a, Consequently, Civ.Stat.Ann. 2.§ special those suited to nature when a rule of the with a stat court conflicts Small, ute, applicable. yield. proceeding Leonard are v. Oak rule must Few v. Charter Co., (Tex.1971). writ Fire Ins. S.W.2d ref'd). In cases where the is called is under a to receive the compila- introduction of evidence and the responsibility for it. ex- tion of statement of facts could have no and assume function, change custody can utility, purpose; discernable nothing “proceeding” hence, but not intended probably nothing record can be court and be intro- Legislature but a in the cause in which “paper” following duced evidence transmission appears by its answer. The record agency.5 to the district court is, “filed” when it left in the Indeed, 19(d)(1) when APTRA directs court, regardless of whether custody of reviewing “transmit to the Fire placed a file mark on it. Standard or a certified court the LaCoke, Ins. Co. record,” with the court authority entire (Tex.1979). subsequent correction permit Second, conclusions argument additions to the statute record or opinion outlined in the initial of this possible implies strongest terms that inherently of the rules contradictory file the court “in civil procedure applicable If transmitted. this were generally”. cases Legislature, intended there would or reason for justification requiring of Tex.R.Civ.P.Ann. provisions transmitted (1967) pertain and 376a (Supp.1982) opposed day of final day, answer the clerk of the Rule 376 directs scripts. court, hearing the district some months to and transmit to prepare trial court afterwards, when “evidence” years even proceed- court “a true of the appellate 19(d)(1). Is be received. APTRA may rule directs ings in the trial court.” The intended that Legislature one to assume the specific numerous docu- inclusion of remain in a state ments, paper record as filed “any as well day of final Rule neglect designate or oblivion until as material.” party may not, hearing? Obviously unques- and the shall be transcript that the 376a is 19(d)(1) tionable intent behind APTRA directed may form be such prepared be filed in the that the record of Texas. of the Court Supreme orders which it is “transmitted” of Tex- viewing rule, court to Court Under this time, specified thereby within the “the period an order that promulgated as has [tri- objective an de- instrument permitting may immediate judge al-court] transcript its transmission which he deems termination whether in the included sufficient time further that the timely; allowing parties has directed proper”; and clerk’s hearing final to examine the record shall conclude including accuracy, included completeness the documents certificate that all irreg- copies correct procedural it omits to reflect “true and whether therein are record in af- file and of occurring agency; before the now on ularities Thus, if the record to office.” fording opportunity the court clerk’s] [the additions; dis- be filed in the may any necessary agency proceedings corrections be includ- court, may the court a that it invoking plain in the clerk of trict record in the Court filing of the safekeeping see to the ed in the below, or, filed custody as discussed left of Appeals, “original paper” as an Appeals court. Court in the district filed that on We think it rather obvious agency rec that the argument to the district delivery be included in may properly 19(d)(1), the ord pursuant to APTRA § requiring judi- act in party seeking formed a useless to hold that the Were we required to introduce the record transmit the record cial review is day. would be we into evidence in answer per- presume Legislature as used in Tex.R.Civ.P. (The “papers” word frequently the record is transcript, because method [1979], prescribing Ann. large, as Rule 379 invalid. Just very papers, other and exhib- “pleadings, to be transmit- permits “original exhibits” its,” “pleadings” because limited Appeals copies in lieu of ted filed with “papers” may Rule 74 be under facts, thereof included in statement pleadings, they whether judge, Moon, Machinery Corp. Food “pa- exhibits, papers.”) or “other The word writ), 379, is in Rules 376 and pers,” as used “original also permits papers” the agency construed to include transmitted to the Court of lieu in the dis- because must filed transcript: copies thereof included in very wherein it forms the basis trict court opinion When the trial court of review. original papers or exhibits should be ... Accordingly, interpret phrase we sent in lieu of appellate civil actions “in manner make such order therefor copies, Legislature’s generally” evidencing safekeeping, transportation, and for the intention that the filed prop- and return thereof as it deems n the first instance the district court court on its own er.... allowing for its transmission to agency, initiative direct clerk of the “original paper” as an court below send it any trial court.6 for its paper inspection, exhibit Third, forego- if we are mistaken (emphasis It is apparent ing, it does not follow that the Commission “paper” encompasses something word dif validly correct ferent than what is included within the solely by to this Court means “exhibit,” meaning of the other word “original a statement of facts being latter a term used throughout exhibit,” presupposes each of which rules describe documents or other articles (or contents) was tendered e.g., introduced in evidence. See Tex.R.Civ. in the district and received evidence 75a, (1979). 75b “paper” P.Ann. The word “pleadings.” has been held be not limited to Co., ame v. Prudential Ins. in the matter position The Commission’s Cal the writ). 5.W.2d no it fails to allow for (Tex.Civ.App.1968, is untenable because Spring properly Branch Ind. School in not includable in the statement decision were Church, Lilly Dist. White proponents con- 505 S.W.2d 620 of their of facts because the writ) is not to the con- permissible neither of the two tents had taken There, trary. urged court was introducing of their contents courses action transcripts deposition consider the contents of is, evidence, deposi- in introduction of disputed question on as evidence of fact entirety; transcripts or in evidence their tion transcripts deposition when the contents of the reading their contents evidence. hearing not read had been in evidence at prop- phrase If “could not one assumes abatement, transcripts plea nor had erly refers well included therein” been evidence, entirety, been introduced in in their “transcript,” the statement to the antecedent deposition as exhibits. contents of the true, course, for remains of the reason transcripts not were thus “evidence” depositions were immaterial all, transcripts proponents at case of depositions proponents of wherein the having permissible taken neither of the two sought against trial court’s to use them introducing courses action for the contents of evidentiary hearing. ruling based McDonald, in evidence. 2 Texas Civil Practice transcripts, though they Deposition even 10.02.17, (1982). pp. 456-57 do not constitute filed Lilly White Church The court stated in pur- although they may serve other evidence [appel- “depositions were not made e.g., court. See poses Tex.R. in the district facts, transcript or of the statement of late] by special provision 166-A(c), Civ.P. therein,” properly have been included could not transcripts may deposition be contents filed transcripts though deposition had even evi- adjudication in the of motions considered dently filed in the case in the district been receipt summary judgment, of oral testimo- court. 505 S.W.2d at This statement adjudications. ny being prohibited in such depositions the court can mean that controlling yield statutory requirement, to that proposition that “evidence” must (except exceptional not taken for the to hold that and we would still here) applicable situation not in the district properly record APTRA, court’s review under when case, though Court, in this even the wording that review is based inapt or more rules for the one a trial de novo. APTRA not our discussion in footnote purpose. See Thus, nothing absolutely gained weight not, course, (We believe the four. merely pointing force out logical applicable inapt regard, rules to be in that incongruity including above; rather, pointed length we out at it to appellate transcript, bringing them to well-suited to inclusion believe “original paper” as an record in the greater incon- filed in the district court—a to this Court transmission the record introducing results from gruity “original paper” district in a record in “evidence” as an “exhibit” court.) statutory cause of action purely practice that a recognize, We the district court is forbidden positively tendering receiving developed take denied expressly evidence and in “evidence” in cases fact-finding If power. have often present. such as the We may neither be filed in district taken to this viewed such records exhibit, nor as an introduced in evidence Nevertheless, Court under APTRA § in the con- generis then it an article sui requirement has never been made a stat- templation of rules of and a introduced in “evidence.” We record be specify ute a method expressly which do agen- will it now. We hold the bringing appel- that record before for review. cy record is before us document, although late court as Commis- Accordingly, we overrule the pro- invokes the rules of expressly af- motion dismiss transmittal sion’s expressly requires cedure and below. document to district firm of Appeals. and the Court Over- Affirmance or Dismissal Motion for interpret the Rules We are constrained ruled. liberally “to obtain

of Civil Procedure fair, adjudica- just, impartial equitable Justice, SHANNON, dissenting. under estab- rights litigants tion of I dissent. (em- lished of substantive law.” principles question presented by A threshold phasis motion for affirmance. The Commission’s to facilitate rath- These rules were intended initial motion is of the Commission’s point er to and final deter- speedy than hinder a Purolator, to appellant, had that appeal from the mination of the case on record to bring forward court; long it has been accordingly, district so, do Court, failed to and because held there affirmed because should be judgment practice where a is established that re- to this for nothing presented is court, it the court competent of for view. its adopt prevent so to exercise yield underlying and to make it facts Commission’s particular oppression The Pu- circumstances as follows. particular for affirmance are motion heard in case. in district court was rolator’s suit request 1982. Purolator did February, 41, Laboratories, 144 Tex. Globe Smirl facts be taken of statement of that a (1945). Because AP- did and, hearing, Purolator at that hearing, requires TRA § into evi- not introduce the of brought before the Court signed court thereafter district dence. The manner, procedure civil some the rules of order. sustaining appellate practice trial and applicable to required, accordingly, this Court is transcript Purolator filed the set- of this Court on Rules of Civil Procedure July Clerk refer to those contained, things, taking transcript among appeals other ting out court, pleadings parties of in district The Rules of Civil generally. civil actions Procedure, orders of the a cer- correspondence, and those Rules general, of lieu payment appeal tificate of cash in of particular, record on lating to the bond, costs, a bill of usual district long concept adopted were July transcript clerk’s certificate. confined to an administra- refer, manner, in any did not to the record tive law. Amendments to record became before the concerning the Rules of Civil Procedure subsequent appeal, promulgated record on filed Only after Commission its initial not addressed the matter of affirmance, fifty-three motion and some appeals or administrative administrative days transcript, after it filed the provide simply Rules that the records. The Purolator filed with the Clerk this Court in a civil case consists of a transcript. the first supplemental sup- and, necessary ap- transcript plemental contains the transcript following a statement of facts. Tex.R.Civ.P. peal, signed by judge: (1982). It 20 of the plain Ann. 371 hereby It is ordered that the Clerk of this together, require taken Act and Rule herein, Court transmit for an record to be in order Transpor- Railroad Commission appellate reviewed 035851AIN, tation Docket No. part either as a appear record must of Appeals Clerk of the Court for the transcript or the statement of facts. Third Judicial District original form as supplement insists, majority and the of this Purolator filed, transcript pursuant heretofore held, 379, T.R.C.P., Rules 428 on said court as a brought appellate 13,771. [Emphasis ap- Court’s No. Cause transcript and that Purolator pearing order] record to this Court in supplemen- first appeal as The Commission then its “Motion agree I transcript. tal Agency Strike Record and First Supplemen- procedural vehicle proper Dismissal,” tal Motion for Affirmance record. bringing up calling upon this dismiss the ap- Court to peal judg- or to affirm the district court’s “proceed- ment. ings prepared court” which court and is transmit- Procedure and Texas the clerk of the trial Administrative Act, court. Tex.R.Civ.P. ted to the Register Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. lists (Supp.1982), governs appeals (Supp.1982). 6252-13a Ann. 376 included the clerk judgments the court of from documents to be appeals orders, charge transcript: pleadings, the district court rendered in administrative verdict, findings or the jury’s law cases. Section law, excep- bills “in fact conclusions of be taken the manner tion, and so on.1 The generally.” comply judgment, To with civil actions any upon ex- provides part: motions or order of the court Rule 376 made, complaint the ceptions is to which deposit, Upon filing of the cost bond or charge and the verdict of of the court prepare un- the clerk of the trial court shall findings jury, and conclusions or of fact his and of court and imme- der hand seal law; exception; judgment of of of bills diately desig- appellate transmit to the court court; trial and the the motion new party appealing a nated true of thereon; of court notice order court, and, proceedings in the trial unless giving appeal date of of limitations designated by agreement otherwise same; par- any statement or following: parties, include the live shall had; matter to be included ties upon pleadings which the was trial trial legibly duplicated, typewrit- opinion must When the court of script ten, original papers or exhibits should be that printed, or and all sheets court or sent to inspected by appellate securely it is must be fas- written copies, it appellate court in lieu of together. tened Tex.R.Civ.P.Ann. 376-a such therefor and for may make order safekeeping, transportation, and re- A composed of documents transcript as it deems proper. turn thereof “proceedings which reflect the trial list original shall contain a of such order (1982). The ad- court.” Tex.R.Civ.P. 376 in numerical with a brief exhibits course, not, of a “pro- ministrative record each, and, so identifying description court,” ceeding in the trial but instead practicable, all such exhibits shall far reflects the had before ad- firmly and arranged the order listed Furthermore, ministrative Rule appellate court on together. bound the documents to be includ- enumerates may its own initiative direct clerk my ed in the transcript. opinion, any original court below to send that record does clear an administrative or its inspection. exhibit for paper not, cannot, fit within that class of and no uncertain today, there has been Until documents.2 appellate 379 the to the role of Rule ty as rec- Assuming, arguendo, trial The Rule process. empowers ord of the tran- may properly part or exhibits to be original papers script, Purolator did not it manifest that the appel when there is a need for up sent sending that record made a first them or when inspect late court to papers exhibits will avoid supplemental transcript. up The Rules expense. “origi large copying phrase duplicate, the clerk of trial court refers to items ten papers nal or exhibits” type print all documents be included into evidence in the dered and admitted all transcript pages and that may of the case and not items together. be “securely documents fastened” but not admitted file with the clerk on (Supp.1982). 376-a Independent Branch Spring evidence. into was record in Church, 505 White Lilly School District printed” “duplicated, typewritten into together and “securely fastened” v. South Corporation Oil writ); See Gulf first Tex.R.Civ.P. supplemental transcript. Royalty Company, land Ann. (Supp.1982). 376-a 'd, aff 496 S.W.2d (Tex.Civ.App.1972) 590-91 claims, majority Purolator and written, the As (Tex.1973). previously held, the district court that Rule allows never in appeal up to order clerk send evidence, any oth like into troduced “supplemental” record as not admit er on with the clerk but item file agree. I previously filed. do not transcript brought evidence, up not be into ted to Rule 379. pursuant as follows: record; certificate, into the tran- them “octavo size” and fasten or the bond so, photographs affidavit, bond; many so script? a certified If such or notice in lieu of costs, including practically useless for the cost of the tran- bill of be rendered on would facts, any, script purposes appellate if the statement review. showing any payments made credits authority, agen- state, some I thereon; paper many cy thousands records often contain designate as material. pages exhibits. On occa- hundreds of sion, the office of such records are argument Appellant’s boxes on in numerous of this Court the Clerk transcript over- made freight a record such dollies. Inclusion frequently agency records the fact looks would render into maps, huge photographs, mounted contain unwieldy for use too clerk, by process, some charts. Is the district unspeakably expensive. pages supposed items to reduce such for in civil manner view, law, well facts if majority’s The The required generally cases orderly administra- prove disruptive thereby assured appellate court an appellate justice. example, tion For the attention here, record was file appellant, as its the court limited and that tendering script without before the to the record appel- days thereafter Thirty form. since inexpensive addition, its lant will file brief. not be more of facts need Twenty-five appellee later the statement days adminis- original pages realiz- than a few Appellee, file brief. required to its an ex- up record comes brought up trative ing that appellant party.3 appealing no cost to the record, and file a hibit at prepare then will for an affirmance praying brief is not The is no record from basis that there that we evaluate this Court so can demonstrate error appellant ap contentions on determine Purolator’s re- Upon agency or district court. presumed final order is peal. agency’s brief, majority’s ceipt of if the appellee’s Texas City Antonio v. to be valid. of San correct, appellant required all view is (Tex. Commission, 407 Water is to prepare has failed to 1966). Because Purolator up send sign trial court and then or in district error show transcript. Obvi- by supplemental affirm of this Court to will then be ously, appellee and I district court delaying thereby re-brief case further Basin, Inc. v. Railroad Com would do so. disposition appeal. the final Texas, (Tex.Civ. mission that, writ). App.1981, moment Finally, may be of some majority’s adopted, should the view be placed court will be unusual being

stance in our jurisprudence

quired place to refer to the review of the statement of facts

evidence. proper-

Because an record cannot ly transcript, be a ARMORED, INC., PUROLATOR seeking judicial review in district Appellant, admit, offer, and should the court should administrative record into evidence as OF RAILROAD COMMISSION Ewbank, exhibit. Shannon and TEXAS, al., Appellees. et Administrative Procedure and Texas Prob- Register Act Since 1976—Selected No. (1981). The lems, 33 Baylor L.Rev. into evi- admission Austin. the statement thereby dence is reflected thereafter, appealing party, facts. 16, 1983. Nov. may obtain an order from the up pursuant to Rule 379 send record as the administrative

appellate By procedure, exhibit. appel-

administrative record is filed to a statement of

late court as an exhibit 1, 1983, filed with the record is September the Administra- 3. Effective Act, to be offered and court and is Register clerk of the trial Tex. Procedure and Texas tive evidence. admitted into art. 6252-13a § Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann.

Case Details

Case Name: Purolator Armored, Inc. v. Railroad Commission

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Nov 16, 1983

Citation: 662 S.W.2d 700

Docket Number: 13771, 18012

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.