Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Arthur Lopez D/B/A Mi Ranchito

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 28, 1999
Docket04-98-00828-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Arthur Lopez D/B/A Mi Ranchito (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Arthur Lopez D/B/A Mi Ranchito) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Arthur Lopez D/B/A Mi Ranchito, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

No. 04-98-00828-CV


TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION,
Appellant


v.


Arthur LOPEZ, d/b/a Mi Ranchito,
Appellee


From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 98-CI-12264
Honorable John Gabriel, Judge Presiding


Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 28, 1999

JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE DISMISSED



The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeals the trial court's judgment reversing the county judge's decision to deny Arthur Lopez's application to renew his wine and beer retailer's permit and retail dealer's on-premise late hours license for Mi Ranchito. The Commission contends the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider Lopez's appeal because he failed to file a motion for rehearing, as required by the Texas Administrative Procedure Act. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 2001.145(a) (Vernon Pamph. 1998). We agree. When reviewing an application to renew a beer and wine license, a county judge "is actually acting as part of the review process of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission," and a "denial by the county judge constitutes a denial by the commission"; therefore, judicial review of the county judge's decision is governed by the Texas Administrative Procedure Act. Lindsay v. Sterling, 690 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex. 1985). Under the APA, a timely filed motion for rehearing " is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review by the district court." Id. at 563; Temple Indep. School Dist. v. English, 896 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex. 1995).

The Commission contends Lopez did not file a motion for rehearing; Lopez has not filed a brief contending otherwise; and the record does not reflect one was filed. The undisputed record thus establishes the district court was without jurisdiction over Lopez's appeal. We therefore vacate the trial court's judgment, dismiss the cause, and reinstate the order of the county judge.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lindsay v. Sterling
690 S.W.2d 560 (Texas Supreme Court, 1985)
Temple Independent School District v. English
896 S.W.2d 167 (Texas Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Arthur Lopez D/B/A Mi Ranchito, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-alcoholic-beverage-commission-v-arthur-lopez-texapp-1999.