Case Information
*1 The Attortwy General of Texas irpril 14. 1986 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General Honorable John B. !Iolmes, Jr. Opinion No. .I%474
Supreme Court Building District Attorney P. 0. BOX 12548 201 Pannin, Suite ~100 Rc: Authority of the presiding judge Austin, TX. 78711-2548 Houston, Texas 7'7002 512/4752501 of an administrative judicial region Telex 01018761367 to make judicial assignments in Telecopier 512/475.0266 Rarris County Dear Hr. Rolmes: 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dallas, TX. 75202-4508
2141742-8944
You ask the iqlinion of this office concerning the authority of
the chief justiw and the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region to assign judges to try cases and dispose of accumu- 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 180 lated business in .the district courts in Rarris County. It is our El Paso, TX. 79905-2793 915/5333484 opinion that the pmvisions of the Court Administration Act, codified
as article 2000-1, V.T.C.S., govern the assignment of judges for the trial of cases and, disposition of pending litigation in the district ,001 Texas, Suite 700 courts in any counqr, including Harris County. Houston, TX. 77002-3111 7131223-5888 Historically, article 200a, V.T.C.S., governed the administration of the district c.ourts of the state, including the administrative 808 Broadway, Suite 312 judicial districts, the presiding judges of such districts, and the Lubbock. TX. 79401-3479 assignment of regular district judges and certain retired and formar eaw747.5238 district judges to .preside in the district courts of the state. The
Texas courts had h4tl.d that 4309 N. Tenth, Suite B McAlle”, TX. 78501-1885 [51216824547] judges trying different cases in the sane court at [tlhere is no prohibition against tvo or more
the emme time, each occupying a different courtrom. 200 MaIn Plaza, suite 4w San Antonio, TX. 782052797 512l2254191 Permian Corp. v. I'ickett. 620 S.W.2d 878, 881 (Tex. Civ. App. - El
Paso 1981, writ rcz'd a.r.e.). Hence, a judge may be authorized by assignment to sit as judge of a district court when the regular A,, Equal OpportUnitYl district judge is also present and trying another case at the same Affirmative Actlon Employer
time, vith e&h ocxpyin~ a separate c&rt~om. See Zamara v. State, 508 S.W.2d 819, 82:s (Tex. Grim. App. 1974); ReedrState. 500 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crirl. App. 1973).
Prior to the enactment of the judicial title of the Government Code, the legielatrre in 1983 amended article 200a by adding section 5f to read as follows:
i ,.
Honorable John B. Eolmes. Jr. - Page 2 (JM-474)
sec. 5f. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, ne:lther the chief justice uor the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district in which Harris County is located may assign a judge to a court in Harris County if the regular district judge is present or trying cases unless the assignment is for the regular docket of the :
(1) presidiue administrative judge and the judge is present attending to administrative duties; or
(2) presiding judge of a court created by the legislature and the judge is trying a capital murder case.
See Acts 1983; 68th Leg., ch. 889, 926, at 4975. Additionally, Zion 27 of the sams act, which did not amend article 200a but was enacted as original legisls~tion, provided that
[t]he district ccurts in Harris County may uot sit in more than om location. The courts may not establish an anmx or branch court.
The judicial title o:f the Goverument Code is a nonsubstantive recodification of the stamtes relating to the judiciary which was passed by chapter 480 of t'm Sixty-ninth Legislature on May 17, 1985. Chapter 480 expressly repmled all of article 200a as part of the recodification. The provisions of article 200a relating to the assignment of judges to d::r:trict courts which are pertiuent to your inquiry were recodified iu the Government Code without change in sections 74.031-74.034 (germs1 provisions for assignment of judges to district courts) and section 74.061 (prohibiting assigumaut in Harris County if regular district judge is present and trying cases).
The Code Constructim Act, recodified as chapter 311 of the Government Code, provides that "if any provision of a code conflicts rith a statute anacted by t!ne saue legislature that enacted the code, the statute controls." Ijec. 311.031(d). Accordingly, it is our opinion that the assigmwut of judges to the district courts as authorized without restriction by sections 4.016, 4.017, and 5.002 of the Court Administration Ax is applicable in all counties, including * Harris County, and that the limitation on assigmmmt to Harris County
in section 74.061 of the Government Code was repealed by the legisla- ture.
Subsequant to the ena~xuent of the judicial title of the Govern- ment Code, the sane sess:ion of the legislature, on May 27, 1985, *3 Honorable John B. Holmes. JI:. - Page 3 (m-474) .4
passed chapter 732, which ls kuowu and cited as the Court Administra- tion Act. Sec. 8.001. Whi:Le many, but not all, of the provisions in article 200a are retained in chapter 4 of the Court Administration 'Act, the act repealed all of article 2008 and enacted in its place a new and more couprehensivc! act for the administration of the courts that comprise the judicia'l system of this state. For instance, chapter 5 provides for a local administrative judge in each county and for local rules of adm~uistratiou adopted by the district and statutory county court judges In each county. Chapter 6 provides for a court coordinator system,.
Sections 4.016 and 4.317 of the Court Administration Act contain general provisions that am applicable in all counties. Section 4.016 provides:
(a) Under rules prescribed by the council of judges, a presidlug judge from time to tias shall assign the judges of the administrative region to hold special or regular terms of court in any county of the acluiuistrative region to try cases and dispose of accumulated business. The assign- ment may be made during or after the consultation concerning the stete of the business of the courts at a meeting of the judges of the administrative region and with or without an additional meeting of the judges.
(b) The presiding judge of one administrative region may request the presiding judge of another administrative m&n to furnish judges to aid in the disposition WC litigation pending in a county in the administrative region of the presiding judge who makes the request.
Section 4.017 provides:
(a) In additton to the assignment of judges by the presiding judges as authorized by this chapter, the chlaf justice may assign judges of one or more administrative regions for service in other administra:ive regions when he considers the assignment necessary for the prompt and l fficiant administration o:I justice.
(b) A judge assignad by the chief justice shall perform the sams duties and functions authorized by this chapter that the judge would perform if he were assigned by the presiding judge.
Honorable John B. Holuas. Jr. - Page 4 (~~-474)
In addition, section 5.OC2 of that act provides that each local administrative judge, among other things, shall recommend to the regional presiding judge my need for assignuent from outside the county to dispose of court case loads.
The exception applictlble to Harris County in section 5f of article 200a, limiting the assigmmnt of judges, is not included by the lenislature in the Court Administration Act. The dominant consideration in construing statutes is legislative intent. See City of Sherman v. Public Utilk:y Commission, 643 S.W.2d 681, 684(Tex.
1983). The legislature expressly repealed section 5f of article 200a again without enacting the provisions of section 5f of article 200a in the Court Administration Act. Additionally, a law not expressly repealed may be repealed ty implication. In our opinion, the Court Administration Act repealed inconsistent provisions incorporated in the new Governnent Code. The Texas Supreme Court has held that where a later enactment is intended to embrace all the law on the subject with which it deals, it repeals all former laws relating to the saue subject.
Under this rule, a statute that covers the subject matter of a former law and is evidently intended as a substitute for it, although containing no express words to that effect, operates as a repeal of the former 1~ to the extent that its pro- visions are revised and its field freshly covered. Accordingly, parts of the original Act that are omitted from the new legislation are to be con- sidered as annull.ed. If the later act is clearly intended to prescribe the only rules which should govern, it repeals the prior statute, although the two are not repugnant in their provisions.
Motor Inv. Co. v. City of Uamlin, 179 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Tex. 1944). See also McInnis V. State, 7103 S.W.2d 179, 183 (Tex. 1980); Gordon v.
Lake, 356 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Tex. 1962).
Section 1 of chapter :'32, which enacted the Court Administraticm Act, is a declaration of policy by the legislature that states, among other things, that "it is the policy of this state that the adminis- tration of justice shall be 'prompt and efficient" and
it is the further intmt of the legislature that the administratic~n of trial courts in this state be improved in c'rder to provide all citizens of this state a pranpt, efficient, and just hearing and disposition of all disputes before the various courts, and that all district and statutory county *5 Honorable John B. Rolues, Jr. - Page 5 (JM-474)
,
courts adopt rulc:s of administratiou as provided by this Act.
Ve believe that the legislature intends the Court Administration Act to control all the law on the subject with which it deals, including the assignment of judges :lor the trial of cases and disposition of pending litigation in the i.istrict courts of this state.
SUMMARY The assignment, of judges to the district courts as authorized without restrictions by the Court Adainistration Act: is applicable in all counties, including Barri; County. The liuitation on assignment to Harris County in section 74.061 of the Government Ccsde was repealed by the legis- lature.
JIM MAT'rOX Attorney General of Texas JACR AIGRTOWBR
First Assistant Attorney Mineral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorncby General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committees
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General