Source: http://texas-opinions.com/09-City-of-Desoto-TX-v-White-Tex-2009-Op-by-Green-police-discipline-election-of-grievance-process-pre-appeal-notice-requirement-not-jurisdictional.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:37:32+00:00

Document:
to a pre-suit notice requirement, which is not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Hines v.
not deprive the hearing examiner of jurisdiction to hear White’s appeal.
Is noncompliance with notice requirement / failure to comply with a statutory requirement jurisdictional?
deprives a hearing examiner of authority to hear an appeal. 232 S.W.3d 379, 383–84.
reverse the court of appeals’ judgment.
had full knowledge of the appeal limitation under section 143.057(j). See Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.
Practice and Remedies Code provides us guidance.
with full knowledge of his appellate rights and with knowledge of our guidance in this opinion.
jurisdictional. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment.
requirements under the Code. After the hearing, the examiner upheld White’s suspension.
held that White could recover attorney’s fees under the Code. Id. at 384.
jurisdictional. Therefore, we need not reach the City’s other two issues.
or other unlawful means.” Id. § 143.057(j).
unlawful means.” Id. § 143.057(j).
examiner of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.”).
provision is jurisdictional, absent clear legislative intent to that effect. Id. at 75–76; see also Igal v.
Brightstar Info. Tech Group, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 78, 83 (Tex. 2008).
regardless of whether the claim was anchored in common law or was a specially-created statutory action.
tribunal of very limited jurisdiction, and that it exercises special functions as dictated by statute. See Tex.
(applying Dubai’s reasoning in an administrative context).
To determine whether a statutory requirement is jurisdictional, we apply statutory interpretation principles.
determine legislative intent, whether the Legislature intended those consequences.” Loutzenhiser, 140 S.
any statute, we begin with the text. Meritor Automotive, Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Co., 44 S.W.3d 86, 89 (Tex.
except as provided by Subsection (j).
collusion, or other unlawful means.” Id. § 143.057(j).
Legislature intended the provision to be jurisdictional.
not provide a specific consequence for noncompliance. See generally Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §§ 143.001–.
still protect the officer’s appellate rights, as discussed below.
White urges that our decision in City of Temple Firemen’s and Policemen’s Civil Service Commission v.
offense or alleged offense, or a combination of these statements.
under section 143.010(a) “is mandatory and must be strictly followed.” Id. at 953.
failing to request an abatement). Thus, Bender is distinguishable.
(a) did not deprive the hearing examiner of jurisdiction to hear White’s appeal.
noncompliance, we look to the statute’s purpose in determining the proper remedy.” Helena Chem., 47 S.
the Commission, hear their appeal.” Clark, 197 S.W.3d at 319–20.
Thus, we believe the statute requires some remedy.
make an appellate election with full knowledge of the consequences of choosing each path.
Id. at 286 (citing section 16 of the Fireman’s and Policeman’s Civil Service Act) (emphasis in original).
requires an appeal within ten days of the notice of suspension, a requirement strictly enforced in Bender.
when jurisdiction was only proper in another, so that the plaintiff has an opportunity to re-file the case.
our guidance in this opinion.
of the notice provision applies with equal force under each scheme. See City of Houston v. Clark, 197 S.
this context. Clark, 197 S.W.3d at 318 n.5.
 The Code refers to a “written statement” and a “letter of disciplinary action.” Compare, e.g., Tex. Loc.
provided to White as a “letter of disciplinary action.” See id. § 143.057(a).
appeal. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 143.1015(a).
analysis of alleged jurisdictional provisions] remains valid.” Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Group, Inc., 250 S.
W.3d 78, 84 (Tex. 2008).
 Two other cases cited by White are distinguishable for the same reasons. See City of Lubbock v.
preceding the date the department head suspends the fire fighter or police officer.”).
jurisdiction of the removing body over the subject matter of the removal of an officer.” City of Sherman v.
the Commission—namely, promulgating rules and regulations to govern its functions. Id.
or fire fighter of the appellate limitations at the start of the hearing, so as to avoid this type of situation.
We also note that the Code grants the hearing examiner discretion in conducting the hearing. See Tex.
has the same duties and powers as the commission”).

References: v.

 § 143
 § 143
 v.

 v. 
 § 143
 v.

 v. 
 § 143
 § 143
 v. 
 v.

 v.