In its recent opinion in Perkins v. City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Court of Appeals stated "we disapprove of our conclusion in Wu [v. City of San Antonio], regarding the applicable standard for reviewing the Board’s orders." (emphasis added). By way of background Wu adopted a hybrid standard of review for a challenge to an administrative order, concluding that the review was a substantial de novo review that did not preclude consideration of additional evidence in existence at the time of the administrative hearing, regardless of whether the evidence was introduced at the administrative hearing. In Perkins, the same court (different panel) holds that a pure substantial evidence review applies so that only the factual record before the administrative body may be used in determining whether substantial evidence supports the administrative body’s ruling. The opinion in Perkins may be found at this link.
Which standard controls future cases? The Perkins panel doesn’t overrule Wu, which would send a definitive message that Wu should no longer be relied upon. Instead, the Perkins panel "disapproves" of Wu. It may be that the Perkins panel did not simply overrule Wu out of respect for an entirely different panel of the same court. Perkins is a perfect example of when en banc consideration is appropriate. Generally, en banc consideration by an appellate court is disfavored, but Appellate Rule 41.2(c) explains that it should be used to maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions.