Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

UXlJA for the stahtory appeal process is simply unfounded.
F. Sb evi c erehasn ern
~aluation
of evidence in this math.
The State a h argues that the substantid evidence standard has somehow been
efkkd by the decision of the court of appeals. This claim, however, is entirely unripe as
neither the court of appeals nor the hid court has yet to reach this stage of the litigation.
The trial court emneously detmhed that it had no subject matter jurisdiction and
dismissed Teague's petition prior to evaluating any evidence or applying any eviddmy
standard. The court of appeals merely determined that Teague's petition had invoked
subject matter jurisdiction under Chapter 21 4 and remanded the case back to tbe trial
court fbr further proceeding under the substantial evidence staradslrd. The opinion does
not effect the application of this standard in my way,
Unfdmatefy, the City's appeal of this matter attempts to mkharactmh the true
nature of Teolgue's pleadings. In fact, T w's pleadings serve a dud purpose. On tfie
one hand, they serve as an apped under the statutq framework set hrth by the Teas
L d Government Code. In addition, Teagw brings codtutional chhs which, by
necessity, must operate outside ofthe statutory bework. As established later herein,
Tque has a right to challenge the cunstitutionafity of the ordinance and statutory scheme
outside of the c ohes of lhe statutory bmework itself. As the statute limits the review
of the City's order to the substantial evidence standard of review, Teague must seek a
refief outside ofthe statutmy proca to obtain a detedmtion of his cmutitutiioaal
-1 8-