Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1986 )

-
The Attorney General of Texas
Al'ril16, 1986
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Honorable Julio A. Garcia Opinion No. JM-476
P. 0. 80X 12549 District Attorney
Austin. TX. 78711. 2548 P. 0. Box 1343 Re: Whether statutes authorize
51214752501 78042
Laredo, Texas adoption of a central filing pro-
Telex 910/874.1367
Telecopier 5121475O266
cedure for the district courts of
Webb County
714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dear Mr. Garcia:
Dallas, TX. 75202-4506
214/742-0944
You ask whether there is statutory authority for the adoption of
a central filing procedure for the district courts in Webb County that
4024 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 would not permit rittomeys filing civil suits to designate the court
El Paso, TX. 799052793 in which their cases are to be filed.
9151533-w
Them are three district courts in Webb County: the 49th
1001 Texas. Suite 700
Judicial District Court; the 111th Judicial District Court; and the
Houston, TX. 77002-3111 341st Judicial District Court. The 49th Judicial District Court was
71312295886 the first distric,: court in Webb County. V.T.C.S. art. 22 (1895).
The 111th Judicia:lDistrict Court was created in 1929. Acts 1929.
41at Leg., ch. 3!l, at 73. The 341st Judicial District Court was
808 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479
created in 1983. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 889. at 4956. A provision
8081747.5238 first enacted in 1.929that governs cases filed in the 49th and 111th
Judicial District Caurts states:
4309 N. Tenth, Suite 8
McAllsn, TX. 79501-1685
In Webb County, the clerk of the district
51216824547 courts ;&all file all civil cases, except tax
suits, cn the Clerk's Civil File Docket and shall
number the cases consecutively. Each civil csse,
2w Main Plaza. Suite 400
except t,ax suits, shall be asslmed and docketed
San Antonio, TX. 78205.2797
5121225.4191
in the c&t designated by the artomey filing the
case. The clerk shall keep a separate file
docket, known as the Clerk's Criminal File Docket.
A” Equal OpportunityI for crfio!inalcases and a separate file docket;
Affirmative Action Employer known a!3 the Clerk's Tax Suit Docket, for tax
suits. Each criminal case and tax suit shall be
assigned and docketed in the 49th District Court.
The clerk shall number the cases on the Clerk's
Tax Suit Docket consecutively with a separate
series of numbers and shall number the cases on
the Cler'k's Criminal File Docket consecutively
p. 2179
Honorable Julio A. Garcia - Page 2 (JM-476)
with a separate series of numbers. (Emphasis
added).
Gov't. Code $24.151(e), Acts 1929, 41st Leg., ch. 39, at 74. See also
Gov't. Code $24.213. Thus! the legtslature has specifically provided
that cases in the 49th ar.d 111th Judicial District Court shall be
assigned according to the designation of the attorney filing the case.
You ask whether a central filing system for the assignment of
cases way be adopted In spite of section 24.151(e). We think that the
Sixty-ninth Legislature impliedly repealed section 24.151(e) by
enacting the Court Adminir,trationAct. V.T.C.S. art. 200a-1. That
act allows the district judges and the judges of statutory county
courts to provide for central assignment of cases. V.T.C.S. art.
200a-1, 95.003(b)(l).
Implied repeals are not favored. Gordon v. Lake, 356 S.W.2d 138,
139 (Tex. 1962). Ordinari!.y,a general law does not impliedly repeal
a particular law on the saxe subject. Flowers v. Pecos River Railroad
Co., 156 S.W.2d 260, 263 I:Tex.1941). Rather the particular law is
Gstrued as an exception to the general law. Id. An exception to
that rule, however, is that an enactment IntendeEo embrace all the
law on a subject repeals a:Llformer laws on the subject. The Supreme
Court has explained this rule as follows:
[A] statute that covers the subject matter of a
former law and is evidently intended as a substl-
tute for it, although containing no express words
to that effect, cperates as a repeal of the former
law to the extent that its provisions are revised
and its field frt.shlycovered. . . . If the later
act is clenrly intended to prescribe the only
rules which should govern, it repeals the prior
statute . . . .
Motor Investment Co. v. Ciq of Ramlln, 179 S.W. 278, 281 (Tex. 1944).
See also McInnis v. State, 603 S.W.2d 179. 183 (Tex. 1980). The Court
Administration Act provides for the office of Court Administration of
the Texas Judicial System. V.T.C.S. art. 200a-1, §§3.001-3.011.
Section 5.003(b)(l) of article 200a-1 provides that the district and
statutory county court Ju~dges in each county must adopt rules
providing for the "assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of 211
cases." The act also provides for Administrative Judicial Regions,
sections 4.001 through 4.Cl22.~and County Administration, sections
5.001 through 5.006. Thus, the act is a comprehensive statute
governing administration DE appellate courts as well as district
courts and statutory count!'courts. Its obvious purpose Is to provide
for orderly and efficient sdministratlon of the Texas court system.
See
- 11.001(b). Therefore, we think that the Court Administration Act
p. 2180
, Honorable Julio A. Garcia - Page 3 (JM-476)
Impliedly repealed article 24.151(e), which sets out special
provisions for the administration of district courts iu 2 particular
county.
Therefore, a central f:i.ling
system for assignment of cases may be
adopted In Webb County.
SUMMARY
A central fil:.ngsystem for assignment of cases
under article 20011-1,V.T.C.S., nay be adopted in
Webb County.
cl
Very truly 90
L-m
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
JACK BIGBTOWRR
First Assistant Attorney Gmeral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attornqr General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committees
Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2181