



Lone Star Gas Company v. Railroad Commission Texas Et Al.
TX.40527; 767 S.W.2d 709, 32 Tex. Sup. J. 311 (1989)
-
- $0.99
-
- $0.99
Publisher Description
Per Curiam OPINION This case presents a recurring problem: the failure of the court of appeals to "address every issue raised
and necessary to final disposition of the appeal." Tex. R. App. P. 90(a). Petitioners seek a declaration that certain provisions
of amended rules 30 and 34 of the Texas Railroad Commission dealing with proration and ratable take restrictions are invalid.
Petitioners also seek a declaration as to the applicability of these rules to certain situations. The trial court held the
rules provisions valid, within the Railroad Commission's authority to promulgate. However, the trial court dismissed the case
because it concluded that the request for a declaratory judgment was not ripe. The court of appeals reversed, holding that
the applicability issue is ripe for decision. However, the court of appeals refused to address the validity issue, despite
the trial court's ruling, on the grounds that the trial court's "order of dismissal renders the ruling on validity mere surplusage
which we will not address." The court of appeals is obliged to "address every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal." Tex. R.
App. P. 90(a). When the court of appeals reverses the judgment of a lower court, the appeals court " shall proceed to render
such judgment or decree as the court below should have rendered, except when it is necessary to remand to the court below
for further proceedings." Tex. R. App. P. 81(c). In this case, the trial court held the Railroad Commission rules provisions
in issue to be valid. Notwithstanding some inconsistency in the trial court's holdings on the validity and applicability issues,
the trial court's ruling on the validity and applicability issues, the trial court's ruling on the validity issue was not
"mere surplusage" and was squarely presented to the court of appeals. A holding that the rules are invalid would finally dispose
of this case. A holding that the rules are valid would finally dispose of one of the two principal issues in the case. Prior
to ordering a remand, points calling for rendition of judgment should be considered. Pruitt v. Republic Bankers Life Ins.
Co., 491 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Tex. 1973). Thus, under rule 90(a), the court of appeals was obliged to address the validity issue.
Under rule 81(c), the court of appeals' duty was clear: absent a finding that further proceedings in the trial court were
necessary, the appeals court should have rendered judgment that the challenged Commission rules are either valid or invalid.
No purpose for remand appears in this case. The trial court would have no reason to reconsider its decision that the rules
are valid. The parties neither requested the court of appeals to remand nor suggested that the evidence was not fully developed
on this issue in the trial court. Therefore, the court of appeals erred in remanding the validity issue to the trial court.
See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Frederick, 621 S.W.2d 595, 596 (Tex. 1981).