Case Information
The Attorney General of Texas Al'ril 16, 1986 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General Court Building
Supreme [51214752501] Austin. TX. 78711. 2548 Telex 910/874.1367 P. 0. 80X 12549 Telecopier 5121475O266 District Attorney 78042 Laredo, Texas Honorable Julio A. Garcia P. 0. Box 1343 Re: Whether statutes authorize Opinion No. JM-476 Webb County adoption of a central filing pro- the cedure for district courts of Dear Mr. Garcia: 714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dallas, TX. 75202-4506 214/742-0944
You ask whether there is statutory authority for the adoption of
a central filing procedure for the district courts in Webb County that would not permit rittomeys filing civil suits to designate the court 4024 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 in which their cases are to be filed. El Paso, TX. 799052793
9151533-w
Them are three district courts in Webb County: the 49th 1001 Texas. Suite 700 Houston, TX. 77002-3111 [71312295886] Judicial District Court; the 111th Judicial District Court; and the 341st Judicial District Court. The 49th Judicial District Court was the first distric,: court in Webb County. V.T.C.S. art. 22 (1895). The 111th Judicia:l District Court was created in 1929. Acts 1929. 41at Leg., ch. 3!l, at 73. The 341st Judicial District Court was 808 Broadway, Suite 312 created in 1983. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 889. at 4956. A provision Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 first enacted in 1.929 that governs cases filed in the 49th and 111th 8081747.5238 Judicial District Caurts states: 4309 N. Tenth, Suite 8 McAllsn, TX. 79501-1685 [51216824547] courts ;&all file all civil cases, except tax suits, cn the Clerk's Civil File Docket and shall clerk of the district In Webb County,
number the cases consecutively. Each civil csse, 2w Main Plaza. Suite 400 except t,ax suits, shall be asslmed and docketed San Antonio, TX. 78205.2797 in the c&t designated by the artomey filing the 5121225.4191 case. The clerk shall keep a separate file
docket, known as the Clerk's Criminal File Docket. for crfio!inal cases and a separate file docket; A” Equal OpportunityI Affirmative Action Employer known a!3 the Clerk's Tax Suit Docket, for tax
suits. Each criminal case and tax suit shall be assigned and docketed in the 49th District Court. The clerk shall number the cases on the Clerk's Tax Suit Docket consecutively with a separate series of numbers and shall number the cases on the Cler'k's Criminal File Docket consecutively with a separate series of numbers. (Emphasis added).
Gov't. Code $24.151(e), Acts 1929, 41st Leg., ch. 39, at 74. See also Gov't. Code $24.213. Thus! the legtslature has specifically provided that cases in the 49th ar.d 111th Judicial District Court shall be assigned according to the designation of the attorney filing the case.
You ask whether a central filing system for the assignment of cases way be adopted In spite of section 24.151(e). We think that the Sixty-ninth Legislature impliedly repealed section 24.151(e) by enacting the Court Adminir,tration Act. V.T.C.S. art. 200a-1. That act allows the district judges and the judges of statutory county courts to provide for central assignment of cases. V.T.C.S. art. 200a-1, 95.003(b)(l).
Implied repeals are not favored. Gordon v. Lake, 356 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Tex. 1962). Ordinari!.y, a general law does not impliedly repeal a particular law on the saxe subject. Flowers v. Pecos River Railroad Co., 156 S.W.2d 260, 263 I:Tex. 1941). Rather the particular law is Gstrued as an exception to the general law. Id. An exception to that rule, however, is that an enactment IntendeEo embrace all the law on a subject repeals a:Ll former laws on the subject. The Supreme Court has explained this rule as follows:
[A] statute that covers the subject matter of a former law and is evidently intended as a substl- tute for it, although containing no express words to that effect, cperates as a repeal of the former law to the extent that its provisions are revised and its field frt.shly covered. . . . If the later act is clenrly intended to prescribe the only rules which should govern, it repeals the prior statute . . . .
Motor Investment Co. v. Ciq of Ramlln, 179 S.W. 278, 281 (Tex. 1944). See also McInnis v. State, 603 S.W.2d 179. 183 (Tex. 1980). The Court Administration Act provides for the office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System. V.T.C.S. art. 200a-1, §§3.001-3.011. Section 5.003(b)(l) of article 200a-1 provides that the district and statutory county court Ju~dges in each county must adopt rules providing for the "assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of 211 cases." The act also provides for Administrative Judicial Regions, 4.001 through 4.Cl22.~ and County Administration, sections sections 5.001 through 5.006. Thus, the act is a comprehensive statute governing administration DE appellate courts as well as district courts and statutory count!' courts. Its obvious purpose Is to provide for orderly and efficient sdministratlon of the Texas court system. See 11.001(b). Therefore, we think that Court Administration Act
,
Impliedly repealed article 24.151(e), which sets out special provisions for the administration of district courts iu [2] particular county.
Therefore, a central f:i.ling system for assignment of cases may be adopted In Webb County.
SUMMARY A central fil:.ng system for assignment of cases under article 20011-1, V.T.C.S., nay be adopted in Webb County.
Very truly 90 cl L-m JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACK BIGBTOWRR
First Assistant Attorney Gmeral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attornqr General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committees
Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General