Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )

The Attorney General of Texas
Novehber 30. 1984
JIM MAlTOX
Attorney Generals
Supreme Cowl Building
Honorable Benry Wade Opinion No. m-237
0. Box 12S4B District Attorney
Min. TX. 78711.2S48 Dallas County Re: Effect of Senate Bill No. 42.
512l47wBo1 Condemnation Section 68th Leg., 2nd Called Sessfon on
Telex Sla!B74-1387
Wcopier 51214750268
Services Building jurisdictions of certain county
Dallas, Texas 75202 courts at law in Dallas County
714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dear Hr. Wade:
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
124 Albna Am, SuIta 160 jurisdiction of Counl:y Courts of Dallas County at Law Nos. 2, 3. 4,
Paso. TX. 799052793 and 5. The bill provides In part:
915/wm
Section 2. The County Court of Dallas County
)ol Texas, Suite 700 at Law No. 1 has original and concurrent juris-
Houston, TX. 77002-3111 diction with district courts in all civil cases in
71312235888 which the matter in controversy exceeds $500.
excluding interest, and does not exceed $20,000,
excluding interest, mandatory damages and
SW Broadway. Suite 312
Lubbock. 7X. 79401-3479
penalties, attorney's fees, and costs.
W747-5238
Section :i. The County Court of Dallas County
at Law No. 1 has original and concurrent juris-
4309 N. Tenth. Suite B
cAllen. TX. 7SSOl.lBS5
diction wil:tl district courts in appeals of final
f21682.4547 rulings and decisions of the Industrial Accident
Board, regardless of the amount in controversy.
x) Main Plaza. Suite 400
Acts 1984. 68th Leg., 2nd C.S...ch. 15, Il. at 208. 209.
an Anlonlo, TX. 782052797
5122254181
Specifically, !k!nate Bill No. 42 amended article 1970-3,
V.T.C.S., and increased the jurisdiction of Dallas County Court at Law
n Equal Opporlunilyl No. 1 so that its jurisdiction is original and concurrent
Allirmatlve Action En-ploynr
vith distr:.ct courts in all civil cases in vhich
the matter :In controversy exceeds $500. excluding
interest, tlrld does not exceed $20,000, excluding
interest, mandatory damages and penalties,
attorney's fees. and costs.
Acts 1984. supra. at 209. In addition, the bill conferred
p. 1063
Ilonorable Henry Wade - Page 2 (M-237)
original and concurrmt jurisdiction with district
courts in appeals of final rulings and decisions
of the Industrial A:cident Board, regardless of
the amount in controwrsy.
Id. The legislature may estatslish the jurisdiction 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 1970-16, 1970-18,
1970-31.1, and 1970-31.2, V.T.C.S. Articles 1970-16, 1970-31.1. and
1970-31.2 make references to ,:he jurisdiction of Court No. 1 before
the enactment of Senate Bill :#I,. 42. Because we believe that these
reference 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
jurisdiction 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 for the creation of Court Nos. 3 and 4 and provided that
these courts
shall have exe Lusive , concurrent civil
jurisdiction 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 2 have original and 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 the jurisdictional amount in
controversy for “all county courts at law.” Finally. in 1977. the
legislature created Court No. 5 and provided that
[t]he court hereby created shall have exclusive,
concurrent civil Jurisdiktion of all cases,
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
5 do not have criminal jurisdiction, because the acts creating those
courts expressly provided for only civil jurisdiction.
this series of statutes relating to the jurisdiction of the
County Courts of Dallas County Nos. 2. 3, 4, and 5 are knovn as
reference statutes. The rr.l,e of construction regarding general
reference statutes is that ths, adopting statute includes not only the
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
statute by a “specific and descriptive reference” to the earlier
statute. Specific reference 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
intent to the contrary. SSI?
--_ St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v.
Billiot. 342 S.W.2d 161 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1960, writ ref’d);
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 jurisdiction of all
cases, original 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, concurrent civil
jurisdiction 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. 1
generally rather than incol,porating article 1970-3, V.T.C.S. s by
specific or descriptive referssnce thereto.
Unlike the language use” 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 that the
adopting statute contained language of specific reference. The
adopting statute provided that,
p. 1065
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
courts require a specific and descriptive reference 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:CIthe 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 concurrent . . .
jurisdiction 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
of the statutes involved to exclude any subsequent amendment of
article 1970-3, we are of the opinion that articles 1970-16,
1970-31.1, and 1970-31.2. V.T.,:.S., are statutes which incorporate the
jurisdiction of Court No. 1 b7’ making general reference to its jurls-
diction. 10 addition, we conc:lude that when the legislature enacted
sections 2 and 3 of amended article 1970-3 with regard to the
jurisdiction 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 the jurisdiction
‘3. 1066 c
Nonorsble Henry Wade - Page 5 (JM-237)
of the County Court of Dallas County at Law No. 1,
also had the effect of increasing the jurisdiction
of the County Court of Dallas County at Law Nos.
2. 3, 4. and 5 SIY that their jurisdiction 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 and
penalties, attorwy's fees, and costs.
Additionally, Senal:e Bill No. 42 conferred on
these courts original and concurrent jurisdiction
with district courts in appeals of final rulings
and decisions of the Industrial Accident Board,
regardless of the amount in controversy.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOMGREEN
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
p. 1067