Further, because we do not determine that this appeal is frivolous, we deny Howard’s request for sanctions. 1 . Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon Supp.2000). 2 . Id. § 101.001(3)(B). 3 . See City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 811-12 (Tex.1993). 4 . Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.005(2) (Vernon 1998); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 1.002; see also Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d at 811-12. 5 . See Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex.1997). 6 . See id. 7 . See Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999). 8 . See id. 9 . See id.; Federal Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 405. 10 . Federal Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 405. 11 . See Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 638. 12 . See Federal Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 405. 13 . See Jon ez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>). 32 . Tex.R.App. P.
holding thatwhile damages alleged by plaintiff in her amended petitions may raise some suspicion there is neither anything on the face of those petitions suggesting nor any evidence in the record proving that the amount in controversy was fraudulently alleged in such a case the averments in the petition control holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record holding trial court erred in granting more relief than husband requested in petition and that such error is apparent on the face of the record holding that failure to comply with the hozada requirements is not fatal where the alleged ineffective assistance is plain on the face of the administrative record holding that the lack of evidence of the alleged principals control over the alleged agent precludes the finding of an agency relationship