# Guitar Holding Co. v. Hudspeth County Underground Water Conservation District No. 1

> Texas Supreme Court · August 29, 2008 · 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1339

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883765

## Case

- **Full name:** GUITAR HOLDING COMPANY, L.P., Petitioner, v. HUDSPETH COUNTY UNDERGROUND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NO. 1, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 29, 2008
- **Citations:** 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1339; 263 S.W.3d 910; 2008 Tex. LEXIS 761; 2008 WL 2223209
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Tx
- **Cited by:** 42 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/9883765

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that challenges to a local groundwater conservation district's rules are generally reviewed under the substantial evidence rule, although district authority is reviewed de novo
- holding that a lower court’s judgment remains in force and effect as to any issue it decides that is not appealed
- noting that when an appellant abandons in their petition for review an issue decided in the court of appeals, the court of appeals’ judgment as to that issue remains in effect
- holding that all issues not raised on appeal to this Court are waived

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On rehearing, the District points out that the court of appeals decided several issues that were not included in the appeal to this Court. In addition to the transfer rules at issue here, Guitar Holding complained in the court of appeals about the District’s permitting scheme and its application to Guitar Holding’s particular circumstances. Also in the court of appeals, the District obtained a remand for the determination of certain fees and costs denied it in the trial court. See Tex. Water Code § 36.066(g) (granting district, as prevailing party, its “attorney’s fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs”).
After the court of appeals’ decision in the District’s favor, Guitar Holding narrowed its appeal to focus on the transfer rules. The District submits that Guitar Holding thereby abandoned these other issues but fears that our opinion and judgment may be misunderstood on this point. The District accordingly requests that we clarify that the court of appeals’ judgment has been reversed only in part.
We, of course, agree that issues not presented in the petition for review and brief on the merits are waived. Tex.R.App. P 53.2(f); Tex.R.App. P 55.2(f); Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex.2007) (per curiam). We also agree that Guitar Holding abandoned some issues in its appeal to this Court and that the court of appeals’ judgment remains in effect as to these abandoned issues. Accordingly, we grant the District’s motion for rehearing to clarify that the court of appeals’ judgment is reversed only as to that part upholding the validity of the District’s transfer rules and related permits. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883765. Public record. Not legal advice.