Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas 30. 1984 Novehber JIM MAlTOX
Attorney Generals Opinion No. m-237 Honorable Benry Wade Supreme Cowl Building District Attorney 0. Box 12S4B Dallas County Re: Effect of Senate Bill No. 42. Min. TX. 78711.2S48 512l47wBo1 Condemnation Section 68th Leg., 2nd Called Sessfon on Telex Sla!B74-1387 Services Building jurisdictions of certain county Wcopier 51214750268 courts at law in Dallas County Dallas, Texas 75202 Dear Hr. Wade: 714 Jackson. Suite 700 1llas. TX. 75202.4508 417428@44
You have requested our opinion regarding the effect of Senate
Bill No. 42. Sixty-e:lghth Legislature, 2nd Called Session. ou the of Counl:y Courts of Dallas County at Law Nos. 2, 3. 4, 124 Albna Am, SuIta 160 and 5. The bill provides In part: Paso. TX. 799052793 915/wm
Section 2. The County Court of Dallas County [71312235888] Houston, TX. 77002-3111 )ol Texas, Suite 700 which diction with district at Law 1 has original No. the matter in controversy courts and concurrent in all civil exceeds $500. cases juris- in
excluding interest, and does not exceed $20,000, excluding interest, mandatory damages
SW Broadway. Suite 312 penalties, attorney's fees, and costs. Lubbock. 7X. 79401-3479 W747-5238 Section :i. The County Court of Dallas County at Law No. 1 has original and concurrent juris- 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B diction wil:tl district courts in appeals of final cAllen. TX. 7SSOl.lBS5 rulings and decisions of the Industrial Accident f21682.4547 Board, regardless of the amount in controversy. x) Main Plaza. Suite 400 an Anlonlo, TX. 782052797 Acts 1984. 68th Leg., 2nd C.S...ch. Specifically, !k!nate Bill No. 42 amended article 15, Il. at 208. 209.
V.T.C.S., and increased of Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 so that its is original and concurrent n Equal Opporlunilyl Allirmatlve Action En-ploynr
vith distr:.ct in all civil cases in vhich the matter :In controversy exceeds $500. excluding interest, tlrld does not exceed $20,000, excluding interest, mandatory damages penalties, attorney's fees. and costs.
Acts 1984. supra. at 209. In addition, the bill conferred *2 Ilonorable Henry Wade - Page 2 (M-237)
original and concurrmt with district in appeals of final rulings and decisions of the Industrial A:cident Board, regardless of the amount in controwrsy.
Id. The legislature may estatslish and organization ofall county courts at law. Tex . Coast., art. V. 51; Jordan v.
Crudgington, 231 S.W.2d 641 (‘Tex. 1950); Attorney General Opinions M-1097 (1972); M-907 (1971).
The jurisdictions of the County Court of Dallas County at Law, Nos. 2. 3, 4, and 5 are ~1% out in articles 1970-18, 1970-31.1, and 1970-31.2, V.T.C.S. Articles 1970-16, 1970-31.1.
1970-31.2 make references ,:he jurisdiction of Court No. 1 before the enactment of Senate Bill :#I,. 42. Because we believe that these statutes are statuterI of general reference, we conclude that Senate Bill No. 42 increased t’w jurisdiction of Courts Nos. 2. 3. 4, and 5.
The jurisdiction of Court No. 1 was originally established in 1907. Acts 1907, 30th Leg., ch. LII, I2, at p. 115. In 1917 the legislature created Court No. I! and provided that it
shall have exclusive concurrent civil and criminal of all g:ases, original and appellate, over which by the laws of the State of Texas, the existing County Cour,: of Dallas County at Law [No. 11, of Dallas count:r,, Texas, would have original and appellate jurlsd:Lction. . . .
V.T.C.S. art. 1970-16. Later, in 1963, the Fifty-eighth Legislature provided the creation of Court Nos. 3 and 4 and provided that for these courts have exe Lusive , concurrent civil
shall of all :ases, original and appellate, over which by the 1~s of the State of Texas the existing County Cor.rt of Dallas County at Law Number 1 and County Court of Dallas County at Law Number have original appellate jurisdiction. . . .
V.T.C.S. art. 1970-31.1. 52. In 1971, tt:e legislature enacted article 197Oa. V.T.C.S., which inc::c!ased jurisdictional in amount controversy for “all county courts at law.” Finally. in 1977.
legislature created Court No. 5 and provided
[t]he court hereby created shall have exclusive, civil Jurisdiktion cases, all original and appelkte. over which by the laws of the State of Texas the existing County Courts of ,B, 1064
a gonorable Henry Wade - Page 3 (m-237)
Dallas County at Lin# Nos. 1, 2, 3. and 4 have original and appellate jurisdiction.
V.T.C.S. art. 1970-31.2. $2. As indicated above, Courts No. 3, 4. and because the acts creating those 5 do not have criminal jurisdiction, courts expressly provided for only civil jurisdiction.
this series of statutes relating to the of the County Courts of Dallas County Nos. 2. 3, 4, and 5 are knovn as The rr.l,e of construction regarding general reference statutes. includes not only the
reference statutes is that ths, adopting statute laws in force at the time the! adopting statute became effective, but also subsequent legislation ,celatlng to those laws. See 82 C.J.S.
Statutes 5370 (1953); 73 Am. ,J,lr. 2d Statutes 5028. 29 (1974); Annot.
168 A.L.R. 627 (1947); 2A Su,:herland, Statutory Construction, 551.07 (4th Ed. 1973). This rule of construction should be compared with those adopting statutes which incorporate a particular provision of a by a “specific and descriptive reference” to the earlier statute statute. Specific statutes incorporate only the adopted statute In existence at the rime of the enactment and do not Include subsequent modifications or additions unless there is legislative SSI? St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. intent the contrary. --_ 342 S.W.2d 161 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1960, writ ref’d); Billiot.
see also Trimmier v. Carlton. 2196 S.W. 1070 (Tex. 1927).
As outlined above, articzle 1970-16 contains the language “shall have exclusive concurrent civil and criminal of all original cases, and appellate” over which Court No. 1 has jurisdiction. Articles 197&31.1 and 1970-31.2 both contain the statutory language “shall have exclusive, civil of all cases, original and appellate” over which Court No. 1 has jurisdiction. See V.T.C.S. arts. 1970-31.1, 52; 1970-31.2.
52. This statutory language.cefers to the jurisdiction of Court No.
generally rather than incol,porating article 1970-3, V.T.C.S. s by specific or descriptive referssnce thereto.
Unlike the language use<! in the adopting statutes In this case, in Trimmier v. Carlton. supra! at 1074, the adopting statute was held by the Texas Supreme Court tc make “specific reference” to s previous The question invcllved in Triaanier was whether certain statute.
amendments to the Canales AC): were applicable to the organization reclamation and conservation districts. The Texas Supreme ‘Court reasoned that the language in ,the adopting statute, vhich reads “shall be governed and controlled by the provisions of chapter 87. Acts of the Thirty-fifth Legislature [Canales Act] and amendments thereto,” was statutory language of specific reference. The case was decided lo favor of Incorporating subse’auent modification, however, because lannuane “and amendment theret>” was Included in the adopting statute.
Id.- a; 1074. Similarly, in St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v.
Billiot, supra, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals held
adopting statute contained language of specific reference. The adopting statute provided that,
Ronorable Henry Wade - Page 4 s:JM-237)
[uloless otherwise provided herein [the relevant section] of Article 8306 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, as amended [is] hereby adopted and shall govern. . . . (Emphasis added).
V.T.C.S. art. 8309c. 56 (repeaLed 1973). Thus, we believe that Texas require a specific and descriptive to the statute being incorporated in order to construe a statute as one of specific reference. Those adopting statutes that do not contain such statutory language, such as those involved herein, are statutes of general reference.
The language used by rho legislature to establish the juris- diction of Court Nos. 2, 3, 4. and 5 is similar to the language used in 10 Re Eeiman’s Will, 2 P.2d 982 (N.M. 1931). 10 that case, the New Mexico Supreme Court held tha,: the adopting statute which contained the language
appeals from the judgment of the probate court shall be allowed to 1:t.e district court in the same manner, and subject I:CI the same restrictions as in case of appeals fros the district to the supreme court
was a statute of general referonce. Id. at 984. Similarly, in Reward v. State, 267 S.W.Zd 763, 764 (Ark. m), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that when an adopting statute contained the statutory language “an appeal will lie . . . as in cases of appeals from judgments of justices of the peace to circuit courts,” the statutory reference was to the general law relating to that subject. Thus, we believe that the general statutory language, “shall have exclusive . . . of all cases, ori@al and appellate,” relates to the law
as it existed when articles 1’370-16, 1970-31.1. and 1970-31.2 were enacted and encompasses any subsequent amendment of the jurisdiction of Court No. 1 by Senate Bill Ho. 42.
Because there is no express intent, or any intent, shown in any the statutes involved to exclude any subsequent amendment of article 1970-3, we are of the opinion articles
1970-31.1, and 1970-31.2. V.T.,:.S., are statutes which incorporate of Court No. 1 b7’ making general reference to its jurls- 10 addition, we conc:lude that when the legislature enacted diction.
sections 2 and 3 of amended article 1970-3 with regard of Court No. 1, I:he jurisdiction of Courts No. 2. 3. 4. and 5 was increased as speciEied in sections 2 and 3 of amended article 1970-3.
2-U M H A R Y Senate Bill No. ,i:!, Acts 1984, 68th Leg., 2nd C.S., -ch. 15, $1, i~t 208, which amended article 1970-3. V.T.C.S., aod increased c
‘3. 1066 *5 Nonorsble Henry Wade - Page 5 (JM-237)
of the County Court of Dallas County at Law No. 1, also had the effect of increasing
of the County Court of Dallas County at Law Nos. 2. 3, 4. and 5 SIY that their is concurrent with district courts in all civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500, excluding interest, and does not exceed $20.000, excluding interest , mandatory damages costs. penalties, attorwy's fees, Senal:e Bill No. 42 conferred on Additionally, these courts original and concurrent with district in appeals of final rulings and decisions of the Industrial Accident Board, regardless of the amount in controversy.
JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney Gene::al
DAVID R. RICRARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman. Opinion Committee
Prepared by Tony Guillory
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick G~lplo. Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellioger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton