If an agency has exclusive jurisdiction, a party must exhaust all administrative avenues before asking for judicial review of the agency’s action. Cash Am. Int’l Inc. v. Bennett, 35 S.W.3d 12, 15 (Tex.2000). Otherwise, a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the claims within the agency's exclusive jurisdiction. See Tex. Educ. Agency v. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist., 830 S.W.2d 88, 90 (Tex.1992). 4 . Although not binding authority on appellate courts, we give due consideration to the Attorney General on questions involving the TPIA. See Holmes v. Morales, 924 S.W.2d 920, 924 (Tex.1996) (explaining that Attorney General opinions are "persuasive but not controlling” authority); City of Lubbock v. Cornyn, 993 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); City of Hous. v. Hous. Chronicle Publ’g Co.,
recognizing due consideration to be given attorney general decisions especially in cases involving tpia holding to the distinction between sodomy cases involving the depraved sexual instinct exception to the general rule of inadmissibility and rape cases recognizing general rule recognizing that generally pennsylvania applies decisions involving changes in the law in civil cases retrospectively le to cases pending on appeal holding that the clear and convincing standard provides appropriate due process in cases involving parental rights