Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Alfred NUERNBERG, Petitioner, v. TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION and Milchem Incorporated Ind. and d/b/a Milpark Drilling Fluids, Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Nuernberg appealed a decision of the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) denying him unemployment compensation. In the trial court, the TEC moved for summary judgment. With its motion, the TEC filed neither affidavits nor discovery materials but only the agency record. Relying solely on that record, the trial court granted the TEC's motion. The court of appeals affirmed. 846 S.W.2d 41.

The court of appeals' judgment conflicts with our decision in Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986). The hybrid, de novo — substantial evidence standard of review for appeals from the TEC, outlined in Mercer, prohibits the trial court from reviewing the agency record itself. Individual items within the agency record may be introduced at trial, but they must be introduced independently and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. Because the TEC presented the agency record in its entirety to the trial court, there was no competent evidence on which to base a summary judgment. Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 170, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court grants the application for writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

NUERNBERG v. TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COM'N
(Sep 10, 1993)