Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, in His Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, in His Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-13-00101-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 14, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Rent-A-Center, Inc. has filed a Reply in Support of its Motion for Rehearing in an appeal against Glen Hegar and Ken Paxton, in their official capacities. The appeal arises from a ruling by the 250th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, which found against Rent-A-Center regarding its primary business activities. The trial court did not address the total cost of goods sold, which was stipulated as undisputed. The Comptroller acknowledges the facts are undisputed but contends that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.3 requires remanding the case for the trial court to consider this issue. Rent-A-Center argues that this interpretation misapplies Rule 43.3, contradicting prior appellate decisions, such as Bradleys' Elec. v. Cigna Lloyds Ins. Co., where the Texas Supreme Court stated that an appellate court should resolve issues that could provide the greatest relief rather than remanding for further consideration of issues already established. Rule 43.3 mandates that courts of appeals must adhere to specific procedures when reversing trial court judgments. When a reversal occurs, the appellate court is obligated to address other legal questions without remanding them to the trial court, unless further proceedings are necessary or the interests of justice dictate otherwise. The court referenced precedent cases, such as PUC of Tex. v. City of Harlingen and Hawkins v. EI Paso First Health Plans, to establish that if material facts are established and no further proceedings are needed, the appellate court must render the appropriate judgment. Remand is only warranted if a party lacked the opportunity to present evidence. The court noted that the Comptroller's cited case, Chrismon v. Brown, did not pertain to the current issue. Ultimately, the court concluded that Rent-A-Center's cost of goods sold should be considered the original cost without accounting for depreciation from its federal tax return, as the Comptroller did not contest this claim in their briefs, implying agreement with Rent-A-Center's position.