Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): received evidence on the Hearing Date. To the extent the trial court held an oral hearing on that date, the record reflects that the trial court did not receive any evidence that was the basis of its ruling at that hearing. Under the unambiguous language of the trial court’s Expunction Order, the trial court did not base its ruling on evidence that it received from the parties. See Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439, 441-42 (Tex.2003); Gulf Ins. Co. v. Burns Motors, Inc., 22 S.W.3d 417, 422 (Tex.2000). Because no evidence was presented at any oral hearing on the expunction petition, the line of cases upon which the Department relies does not apply. See U.S. Auto Ins. Serv. Inc. v. Les Marks Chevrolet, No. 14-02-00644, 2003 WL 22021670, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>) (mem. op.). On this record, the lack of a 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the appellate court may reverse an error of law on the face of the judgment when the record contains no transcript of the final hearing (B) holding that error in taking judicial notice of a prior ease was harmless where the entire record of the prior case although not introduced into evidence was made part of the record on appeal and no prejudice was shown (C) holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record (D) holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record (E) holding trial court erred in granting more relief than husband requested in petition and that such error is apparent on the face of the record
Output (English): holding trial court erred in granting more relief than husband requested in petition and that such error is apparent on the face of the record