# Patton v. Texas Liquor Control Board

> Court of Appeals of Texas · June 27, 1956 · 293 S.W.2d 99

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667393

## Case

- **Full name:** W. T. PATTON, Appellant, v. TEXAS LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 27, 1956
- **Citations:** 293 S.W.2d 99; 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 1747
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hughes
- **Judges:** Archer, Gray, Hughes
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667393

## Opinion text

HUGHES, Justice
(concurring).
I agree with Associate Justice GRAY that this case should be determined by the substantial evidence rule and that the County Judge, in this matter, acted in an administrative capacity. I disagree with his conclusion that the order of the County Judge was reasonably supported by substantial evidence.
A void election, an inapplicable or unconstitutional statute, do not, in my opinion, furnish the basis of substantial evidence.
It is common practice for courts to determine whether certain facts are to be given any weight at all in deciding appeals from administrative agencies. See Vol. 33, Texas Law Review, p. 717 at p. 732, Some Aspects of the Texas “Substantial Evidence” Rule by William L. Garwood.
If a void election constitutes substantial evidence that a wet area is dry then, by the same reasoning, a void election would be substantial evidence that a dry area is wet.
I cannot agree that evidence of such character is any evidence, much less substantial evidence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667393. Public record. Not legal advice.