Court Opinion

ID: 9683347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:27:06.338569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:47.314018
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, the Union contends that we erred in finding that its first point of error was too general to merit consideration and that it was not entitled to a substantial evidence review in the trial court. While we find that these contentions are without merit, we also note that the Union did not plead its right to a substantial evidence review in the court below nor does the record show that it brought this point to the trial court’s attention. Indeed, the trial court’s judgment specifically states that after the court declared Article 5154c-l § 16 unconstitutional the “parties represented to the Court that the only thing remaining before the Court for consideration was the [Union’s] petition for declaratory judgment as to the validity of the election of August 4, 1976.” This issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State of California Dept, of Mental Hygiene v. Bank of the Southwest National Association, 163 Tex. 314, 354 S.W.2d 576 (1962). The Union’s motion for rehearing is overruled.