pet. filed); see also Gregg v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp., 162 Tex. 26, 344 S.W.2d 411, 415 (1961) (“Where the issue is one inherently judicial in nature ..., the courts are not ousted from jurisdiction unless the Legislature, by a valid statute, has explicitly granted exclusive jurisdiction to the administrative body.”). Pure questions of law that do not involve “embedded fact issues that counsel deference to agency proceedings” must be decided by the courts. Reconveyance Servs., 240 S.W.Sd at 433. Appellants’ claim under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) falls squarely within the class of claims that this Court has previously determined constitute purely legal inquiries that do not require the development of additional facts. Compare Reconveyance Seivs., 240 S.W.3d at 433 (<HOLDING>), Juliff Gardens, 131 S.W.3d at 279 (holding
holding that whether a city has the authority to enact a particular statutory scheme is a purely legal question holding that udja claim regarding whether appellants services were prohibited by insurance code involved purely legal question despite lack of final agency determination that appellant was in violation of statute holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question holding that a determination that precluded an alien from even applying for relief under section 1255 is a purely legal question that is reviewable holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question