Case Information
*1 ., ’
The Attorney General of Texas November 9, 1983 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General 512,475.2501
Supreme Court Bullding Telecopier P. 0. Box 12548 Telex Austin, 9101874.1367 TX. 78711. 5121475-0266 Austin, Texas Honorable Bob Bush Texas House of Representatives P. 0. Box 2910 Chairman committee on Judiciary Re: Whether a county Opinion No. JM-90 law must be county seat located at the 714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dear Representative Bush: Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 2141742-8944
You ask whether the legislature may create a county court at law
to sit at some location within 4824 Alberta El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 9151533.3484 Ave.. Suite as follows: Section 1 of article V of the Texas Constitution provides in part The Legislature may establish such other courts p 01 Texas. Suite 700 as it may deem necessary and prescribe the ,,ous,on, TX. 77002.3111 and organization thereof . . . . 713023.5686 county courts at law are established under authority of this 806 Broadway, Suite 312 provision. Sterrett v. Morgan, 294 S.W.2d 201 - Lubjm3x. TX. 79401.3479 Dallas 1956, no writ). county courts are 8061747.5238 established by article 15 of the Texas Constitution. See - also Tex. Const. art. V, 91. 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B McAllen. TX. 78501-1685 There is no constitutional provision which would require county 5121682-4547 courts at law to conduct their proceedings See
Tex. Const. art. V, 91, cf. arts. V, §§15-17 (provisions on county 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 judges, jurisdiction, and= of county court). San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797 512/225-4191 Article 1602, V.T.C.S., provides that all terms of
court be held at the county seat. However, this refers county courts and not to county courts at law. Moreover, a statute An Equal Opportunity/ subject to amendment or implied repeal by a later statute. Affirmative Action Employer See, e.g.,
Popham V. Patterson, 51 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1932); Townsend V. Terrell, (Tex. 1929). Section 4 of article 1605~1-5, V.T.C.S., a commissioners to designate facilities outside of county seat as auxiliary courts purposes conducting non-jury proceedings. The constitutional provisions regarding courts at law may
P be contrasted with article 7, which provides (JM-90) district court “shall conduct its proceedings seat of the county in which the case is pending, except as otherwise provided The underlined language was added by a by law.” (Emphasis added). See HJR No. 22, Acts 1949, 51st Session at 1496; 1949 amendment. I, Votes onProposed Amendments to the Texas Constitution, Table 1875-1949, Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., at 1621, 1627.
Prior to the 1949 amendment to article 7, the Texas Supreme Court held invalid the creation at Texarkana of a district the “Texarkana Court at Law” on the ground court called court must be located at the county seat. Turner v. Tucker, Boston, and not Texarkana, 258 S.W. 149 (Tex. 1924). granted the “Texarkana Court at
seat of Bowie County. Law” most of the jurisdiction in civil cases exercised by the district court within Bowie, as well as much of the jurisdiction exercised by the county court. The supreme court stated that “a court empowered to discharge principal functions of the district court must be regarded as a district in giving effect to the command of the amendment.” 258 S.W. at 150. The 1949 addition to article
invalidated this holding.
The Turner v. Tucker court also relied on article IX, section of the Texas Constitution, which concerns the removal of the county seat. The opinion noted that a county seat was originally called seat of justice in the county, and that to permit the establishment the “Texarkana Court at Law” at Texarkana would remove the county seat without complying with the procedures set out in article IX, section
Subsequent cases have ignored this secondary holding in Turner v. Tucker, or have overruled it sub silentio. The court of appeals Jordan v. Crudgi.ngton, - Fort Worth held that a statute establishing a court of domestic 1949, no writ), relations was unconstitutional. The court’s would be equal to that of a district court yet many provisions of the creating could not be constitutionally applied to a district court; for example, it di.d not require the court to sit at the county seat.
supreme court reversed and found the statute except for three provisions: it provided of office of more than two terms years; provided for the removal of the judge and clerk by the juvenile board; and provided for a jury of fewer than twelve persons. Jordan v. Crudgington, 231 S.W.2.d 641 (Tex. 1950).
In Cox v. Wood, 256 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1953), the supreme court held that a juvenile court was not required to sit at the county seat of Dallas County as it existed when Dallas became the county Thus, the Turner v. Tucker discussion on article IX, section 2, has not been applied legislatively created courts. See also Attorney General Opinion C-391 (1965) (1949 amendment to article V. section (JM-go) legislation locating elsewhere in county than at county seat). legislature is authorized to create a county In our opinion, in the county other than the
court at law to sit at some location county seat.
SUMMARY may create a
law to sit at some location
JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
h