§2050.18. Hearing officers; interlocutory order or ruling; judicial review
A.(1) Upon request of a party, the hearing officer may certify an interlocutory order or ruling for direct review by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court when both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The issue involves an important procedural or evidentiary matter on which a substantial difference of opinion exists.
(b) Immediate judicial review will materially advance the conclusion of the proceeding or judicial review after the final order or decision would be inadequate.
(2) An application for judicial review of a certified interlocutory order or ruling must be filed with the court within five days of the certification.
(3) An application for judicial review of the hearing officer's refusal to certify an interlocutory order or decision must also be filed with the court within five days after notice of the refusal. The court may decide the issue sought to be reviewed if it determines that the decision of the hearing officer to refuse to certify the interlocutory order or ruling is not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.
(4) The court shall preferentially consider and decide an interlocutory order or ruling certified for review or an application for review of a hearing officer's refusal to certify an interlocutory order or ruling.
B. For good cause, a hearing officer may stay the hearing when an application for judicial review of an interlocutory order or ruling has been filed with the court.
Acts 1995, No. 947, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts 1996, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 41, §1, eff. May 7, 1996; Acts 1996, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 86, §1.
NOTE: SEE ACTS 1996, 1ST EX. SESS., NO. 41, §2; RE: PROCEDURAL LAW.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.