Texas § 2001.174 REVIEW UNDER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE OR UNDEFINED SCOPE OF REVIEW.

Texas Statutes

§ 2001.174 — REVIEW UNDER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE OR UNDEFINED SCOPE OF REVIEW.

Texas § 2001.174

Code GVGovernment Code

This text of Texas § 2001.174 (REVIEW UNDER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE OR UNDEFINED SCOPE OF REVIEW.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tex. Government Code Code Ann. § 2001.174 (2026).

Text

Sec. 2001.174. REVIEW UNDER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE OR UNDEFINED SCOPE OF REVIEW. If the law authorizes review of a decision in a contested case under the substantial evidence rule or if the law does not define the scope of judicial review, a court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the state agency on the weight of the evidence on questions committed to agency discretion but:

(1)may affirm the agency decision in whole or in part; and

(2)shall reverse or remand the case for further proceedings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(A)in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision;

(B)in excess of the agency's statutory authority;

(C)made through unlawful pr

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

Sec. 2001.174. REVIEW UNDER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE OR UNDEFINED SCOPE OF REVIEW. If the law authorizes review of a decision in a contested case under the substantial evidence rule or if the law does not define the scope of judicial review, a court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the state agency on the weight of the evidence on questions committed to agency discretion but:
(1) may affirm the agency decision in whole or in part; and
(2) shall reverse or remand the case for further proceedings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(A) in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision;
(B) in excess of the agency's statutory authority;
(C) made through unlawful procedure;
(D) affected by other error of law;
(E) not reasonably supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole; or
(F) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.