Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1986 )

The Attortwy General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
irpril 14. 1986
Attorney General
SupremeCourt Building HonorableJohn B. !Iolmes,
Jr. OpinionNo. .I%474
P. 0. BOX 12548 DistrictAttorney
Austin, TX. 78711-2548 201 Pannin,Suite ~100 Rc: Authorityof the presidingjudge
512/4752501 Houston,Texas 7'7002 of an administrativejudicialregion
Telex 01018761367
Telecopier 512/475.0266
to make judicial assignments in
Rarris County
714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dear Hr. Rolmes:
Dallas, TX. 75202-4508
2141742-8944
You ask the iqlinionof this office concerningthe authorityof
the chief justiw and the presiding judge of the administrative
4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 180 judicialregion to assign judges to try cases and dispose of accumu-
El Paso, TX. 79905-2793 lated business in .thedistrict courts in Rarris County. It is our
915/5333484 opinionthat the pmvisions of the Court AdministrationAct, codified
as article 2000-1,V.T.C.S.,govern the assignmentof judges for the
,001 Texas, Suite 700 trial of cases and,dispositionof pending litigationin the district
Houston, TX. 77002-3111 courts in any counqr,includingHarris County.
7131223-5888
Historically,article200a, V.T.C.S.,governedthe administration
of the district c.ourtsof the state, including the administrative
808 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock. TX. 79401-3479
judicial districts,the presidingjudges of such districts,and the
eaw747.5238 assignmentof regular district judges and certain retired and formar
districtjudges to .presidein the district courts of the state. The
Texas courts had h4tl.d
that
4309 N. Tenth, Suite B
McAlle”, TX. 78501-1885
51216824547 [tlhere is no prohibitionagainst tvo or more
judges tryingdifferentcases in the sane court at
the emme time, each occupying a different
200 MaIn Plaza, suite 4w
courtrom.
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 authorizedby
A,, Equal OpportUnitYl assignment to sit as judge of a district court when the regular
Affirmative Actlon Employer district judge is also present and trying another case at the same
time, vith e&h ocxpyin~ a separatec&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 enactmentof the judicial title of the Government
Code, the legielatrrein 1983 amended article 200a by adding section
5f to read as follows:
p. 2167
i
,.
HonorableJohn B. Eolmes.Jr. - Page 2 (JM-474)
sec. 5f. Notwithstandingany other provision
of this Act, ne:ltherthe chief justice uor the
presiding judge of the administrativejudicial
district in which Harris County is located may
assign a judge to a court in Harris County if the
regulardistrictjudge is present or trying cases
unless the assignmentis for the regulardocket of
the:
(1) presidiue administrativejudge and the
judge is present attending to administrative
duties;or
(2) presidingjudge of a court createdby the
legislatureand 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
enactedas originallegisls~tion,providedthat
[t]he districtccurts in Harris Countymay uot sit
in more than om location. The courts may not
establishan anmx or branch court.
The judicial title o:fthe GoverumentCode is a nonsubstantive
recodificationof the stamtes relating to the judiciarywhich was
passed by chapter480 of t'm Sixty-ninthLegislatureon May 17, 1985.
Chapter 480 expresslyrepmled all of article 200a as part of the
recodification. The provisions of article 200a relating to the
assignmentof judges to d::r:trict
courts which are pertiuent to your
inquiry were recodified iu the Government Code without change in
sections74.031-74.034(germs1 provisionsfor assignmentof judges to
districtcourts)and section74.061 (prohibitingassigumautin Harris
County if regulardistrictjudge is presentand trying cases).
The Code Constructim Act, recodified as chapter 311 of the
GovernmentCode, provides that "if any provisionof a code conflicts
rith a statuteanactedby t!nesaue legislaturethat 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
authorizedwithout restrictionby sections4.016, 4.017, and 5.002 of
the Court Administration Ax is applicablein all counties,including
* Harris County, and that the limitationon assigmmmt to Harris County
in section74.061 of the GovernmentCode was repealedby the legisla-
ture.
Subsequantto the ena~xuentof the judicialtitle of the Govern-
ment Code, the sane sess:ionof the legislature,on May 27, 1985,
p. 2168
.4 HonorableJohn B. Holmes. JI:.- Page 3 (m-474)
passed chapter732, which ls kuowu and cited as the Court Administra-
tion Act. Sec. 8.001. Whi:Lemany, but not all, of the provisionsin
article 200a are retained in chapter 4 of the Court Administration
'Act, the act repealedall of article 2008 and enacted in its place a
new and more couprehensivc!act for the administrationof the courts
that comprise the judicia'lsystem of this state. For instance,
chapter5 providesfor a local administrativejudge in each county and
for local rules of adm~uistratiouadopted by the district and
statutorycounty court judges In each county. Chapter6 providesfor
a court coordinatorsystem,.
Sections4.016 and 4.317 of the Court Administration
Act contain
generalprovisionsthat am applicablein all counties. Section4.016
provides:
(a) Under rules prescribedby the council of
judges, a presidlugjudge from time to tias shall
assign the judges of the administrativeregion to
hold special or regular terms of court in any
county of the acluiuistrativeregion to try cases
and dispose of accumulatedbusiness. The assign-
ment may be made during or after the consultation
concerningthe stete of the businessof the courts
at a meeting of the judges of the administrative
region and with or without an additionalmeeting
of the judges.
(b) The presidingjudge of one administrative
region may request the presidingjudge of another
administrativem&n to furnishjudges to aid in
the dispositionWC litigationpending in a county
in the administrativeregion of the presiding
judge who makes the request.
Section4.017 provides:
(a) In addittonto the assignmentof judgesby
the presiding judges as authorized by this
chapter, the chlaf justice may assign judges of
one or more administrativeregions for servicein
other administra:iveregionswhen he considersthe
assignmentnecessaryfor the prompt and lfficiant
administrationo:Ijustice.
(b) A judge assignad by the chief justice
shall perform the sams duties and functions
authorizedby this chapter that the judge would
perform if he were assigned by the presiding
judge.
p. 2169
HonorableJohn B. Holuas. Jr. - Page 4 (``-474)
In addition, section 5.OC2 of that act provides that each local
administrativejudge, among other things, shall recommend to the
regional presiding judge my need for assignuent from outside the
county to disposeof court case loads.
The exception applictlbleto Harris County in section 5f of
article 200a, limiting the assigmmnt of judges, is not includedby
the lenislature in the Court AdministrationAct. The dominant
considerationin construingstatutesis legislativeintent. See City
of Sherman v. Public Utilk:y Commission,643 S.W.2d 681, 684(Tex.
1983). The legislatureexpresslyrepealedsection5f of article 200a
again withoutenactingthe provisionsof section5f of article200a in
the Court AdministrationAct. Additionally,a law not expressly
repealedmay be repealedty implication. In our opinion, the Court
AdministrationAct repealed inconsistentprovisions incorporatedin
the new GovernnentCode. The Texas SupremeCourt has held that where
a later enactmentis 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 statutethat covers the subject
matter of a former law and is evidentlyintended
as a substitutefor it, although containingno
expresswords to that effect,operatesas a repeal
of the former 1~ to the extent that its pro-
visionsare revisedand its field freshlycovered.
Accordingly,parts of the original Act that are
omitted from the new legislationare to be con-
sideredas annull.ed.If the later act is clearly
intendedto prescribethe only rules which should
govern,it repealsthe prior statute,althoughthe
two are not repugnantin their provisions.
Motor Inv. Co. v. City of Uamlin, 179 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Tex. 1944).
See also McInnis V. State,7103S.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 declarationof policy by the legislaturethat states,among
other things, that "it is the policy of this state that the adminis-
trationof justiceshallbe 'prompt and efficient"and
it is the further intmt of the legislaturethat
the administratic~n
of trial courts in this state
be improved in c'rderto provide all citizens of
this state a pranpt, efficient,and just hearing
and dispositionof all disputesbefore the various
courts,and that all districtand statutorycounty
p. 2170
HonorableJohn B. Rolues,Jr. - Page 5 (JM-474)
,
courts adopt rulc:sof administratiouas provided
by this Act.
Ve believe that the legislatureintends the Court AdministrationAct
to control all the law on the subjectwith which it deals, including
the assignmentof judges :lorthe trial of cases and dispositionof
pendinglitigationin the i.istrictcourtsof this state.
SUMMARY
The assignment,of judges to the districtcourts
as authorizedwithout restrictionsby the Court
AdainistrationAct: is applicablein all counties,
including Barri; County. The liuitation on
assignmentto Harris County in section 74.061 of
the GovernmentCcsdewas repealed by the legis-
lature.
JIM MAT'rOX
AttorneyGeneralof Texas
JACR AIGRTOWBR
First AssistantAttorneyMineral
MARY KELLER
ExecutiveAssistantAttorncby
General
ROBERT GRAY
SpecialAssistantAttorneyGeneral
RICK GILPIN
Chairman,OpinionCommittees
Preparedby Nancy Sutton
AssistantAttorneyGeneral
p. 2171