law-exclusive-jurisdiction-of-state-agency
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF STATE AGENCY
When an agency has exclusive jurisdiction of a dispute, the courts have no jurisdiction until
administrative procedures are exhausted. State v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 223 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Tex.
2007); Duenez I, 201 S.W.3d at 675.
In deciding whether an agency has exclusive jurisdiction, we look to its authorizing legislation for an
express grant of exclusive jurisdiction, [See, e.g., Houston Mun. Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248
S.W.3d 151, 157 (Tex. 2007); Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 223
(Tex. 2002)] or for “a pervasive regulatory scheme” indicating that was the Legislature’s intention.17 [E.
g., In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 235 S.W.3d 619, 625 (Tex. 2007); In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 323
(Tex. 2004); see also Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 340 (Tex. 2006).]
Exclusive jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Thomas, 207 S.W.3d at 340; David
McDavid Nissan, 84 S.W.3d at 222.
ERS of Texas v. Duenez, No. 07-0410 (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(petition dismissed)(Brister) (administrative law,
agency exclusive jurisdiction doctrine held not to apply to subrogation claim, which involves collection on
a claim rather than payment thereof)(DWOJ)
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS v. XAVIER DUENEZ AND IRENE DUENEZ;
from Calhoun County; 13th district (13-05-00729 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-05-07 Opinion below)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court dismisses the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf]
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion (arguing the court of appeals should have dismissed the
appeal for want of a justiciable issue)
Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion (favoring application of exclusive jurisdiction doctrine
to the subrogation dispute), in which Justice Johnson joined.
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 207-08 (Tex. 2002) (holding exclusive jurisdiction of agency
to regulate relations between car manufacturers and dealership owners did not include tortious
interference claim by prospective buyer).
Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 53 S.W.3d 310, 316 (Tex. 2001) (noting that we
consider an agency’s interpretation of its own powers “if that interpretation is reasonable and not
inconsistent with the statute”).