Court Opinion

ID: 9730511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:14:33.809847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:07.053376
License: Public Domain

DIANE M. HENSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and reasoning of the majority opinion, with the exception of the discussion of the four-part test for defining an “interpretive rule,” found in footnote six. In light of our determination that the Comptroller’s statements in the March and April 2008 letters constitute a rule under section 2001.003(6) of the APA, we need not address the issue of whether they might also be considered interpretive rules under the four-part test suggested by Professor Beal, or the impact, if any, of an “interpretive rule” designation under the test. Because this test has never been adopted by this Court or the Texas Supreme Court and is not necessary for disposition of the appeal, I decline to join footnote six of the majority opinion.