Court Opinion

ID: 9647850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:53:02.579207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:55.399691
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Amoco Gas Company and the Railroad Commission have filed separate motions for rehearing.
The motions primarily concern consideration by the trial court of the final (September 4,1979) order in Docket 500. The final written order in Docket 500 was not physically made a part of the record in Docket 1702 before the Commission. The Railroad Commission objected to the introduction of the order at the hearing on the temporary injunction insisting the order should have been introduced at the agency level.
Section 16(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that a final decision be in writing or stated in the record. When, as here, the review is on the agency record, Section 19(d)(1) requires the agency to transmit the entire record (unless shortened by agreement) to the district court.
The Commission does not contest the existence of a final order in Docket 500; it only asserts the order is not part of the record and is inadmissible in the trial court. The Commission, specifically incorporated the final order in Docket 500 into the record in Docket 1702 by its June 18 order. However, it did not physically place the Docket 500 order in the record. The Commission cannot defeat appellate review by failing to include the final order or any other order properly a part of the record.
Amoco argues that Big Three’s first attempt to appeal the June 18,1979 order in Docket 1702 deprived the Railroad Commission of jurisdiction to enter any further orders affecting Docket 1702. Thus, it argues we should remand this case to the Commission to enter a final order. An untimely appeal of an interlocutory order cannot deprive the Commission of jurisdiction. Railroad Commission v. Continental Bus System, Inc., 616 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.1981).
The motions for rehearing are overruled. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.