Article V, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution ("County Courts: Jurisdiction; Powers and Disqualification of Judge")

From TLG
Jump to navigation Jump to search

As amended November 5, 1985:

The County Court has jurisdiction as provided by law. The County Judge is the presiding officer of the County Court and has judicial functions as provided by law. County court judges shall have the power to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction.

County Courts in existence on the effective date of this amendment are continued unless otherwise provided by law.

When the judge of the County Court is disqualified in any case pending in the County Court the parties interested may, by consent, appoint a proper person to try said case, or upon their failing to do so a competent person may be appointed to try the same in the county where it is pending in such manner as may be prescribed by law.

Editor Comments

As amended in 1891, this section read: "The County Court shall have original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors of which exclusive original jurisdiction is not given to the Justice's Court as the same is now or may hereafter be prescribed by law, and when the fine to be imposed shall exceed $200; and they shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all civil cases when the matter in controversy shall exceed in value $200 and not exceed $500, exclusive of interest; and concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court when the matter in controversy shall exceed $500 and not exceed $1000, exclusive of interest, but shall not have jurisdiction of suits for the recovery of land. They shall have appellate jurisdiction in cases civil and criminal of which Justice's Courts have original jurisdiction, but of such civil cases only when the judgment of the court appealed from shall exceed $20, exclusive of cost, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law. In all appeals from Justice's Court there shall be a trial de novo in the County Court, and appeals may be prosecuted from the final judgment rendered in such cases by the County Court, as well as all cases civil and criminal of which the County Court has exclusive or concurrent or original jurisdiction of civil appeals, in civil cases to the Court of Civil Appeals, and in such criminal cases to the Court of Criminal Appeals, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law. The County Court shall have the general jurisdiction of a Probate Court; they shall probate wills, appoint guardians of minors, idiots, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, and common drunkards; grant letters testamentary and of administration; settle accounts of executors; transact all business appertaining to deceased persons, minors, idiots, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, and common drunkards, including the settlement, partition, and distribution of estates of deceased persons; and to apprentice minors, as provided by law; and the County Court or judge thereof shall have power to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, and all writs necessary to the enforcement of the jurisdiction of said court, and to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases where the offense charged is within the jurisdiction of the County Court or any other court or tribunal inferior to said court. The County Court shall not have criminal jurisdiction in any county where there is a Criminal District Court, unless expressly conferred by law; and in such counties appeals from Justices' Courts and other inferior courts and tribunals in criminal cases shall be to the Criminal District Court, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and in all such cases an appeal shall lie from such District Court to the Court of Criminal Appeals. When the judge of the County Court is disqualified in any case pending in the County Court the parties interested may by consent appoint a proper person to try said case, or upon their failing to do so, a competent person may be appointed to try the same in the county where it is pending, in such manner as may be prescribed by law."

Under this section, which was substantially rewritten in 1985, the Legislature has complete control over the existence and jurisdiction of constitutional county courts.

—Attorney Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

None.

Historic Decisions

  • Novak v. Stevens, 596 S.W.2d 848, 850-51 (Tex. 1980) ("The court of civil appeals relied upon Jones v. Chamberlain, 563 S.W.2d 885 . . . . We disapprove the decision in Jones v. Chamberlain and the constitutional amendment has overruled the holdings in similar cases that arose before November 6, 1973. Among those precedents concerning the limited jurisdiction of probate courts which are no longer binding, are: Tips v. Yancey, 431 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. 1968); Nesbett v. Nesbett, 428 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. 1968); Murphy v. Slaton, 154 Tex. 35, 273 S.W.2d 588, 597 (1954); Langehennig v. Hohmann, 139 Tex. 452, 163 S.W.2d 402 (1942); Huston v. Cole, 139 Tex. 150, 162 S.W.2d 404 (1942).")
  • State v. McClelland, 224 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex. 1949) ("The Act does not undertake to limit or take away the jurisdiction of the County Court of Harris County. It provides for another court to share the burdens and jurisdiction of the County Court, in order to dispose of cases that have already crowded the docket of that court. The Act also provides how the cases now pending shall be divided, and how the future cases filed with the county clerk shall be divided between the two courts, so that . . . . This Court has repeatedly held that no Act of the Legislature will be declared unconstitutional unless some provision of the Constitution can be cited which clearly shows that the Act is invalid.")
  • Rogers v. Graves, 221 S.W.2d 399, 400 (Tex.Civ.App.–Waco 1949, ref'd) ("Both the District and County Court of Navarro County are integral parts of the Judicial Department of the State of Texas as a whole. Although the judicial power of each to adjudicate any controversy as a court of nisi prius is restricted to the . . . . Therefore, we hold that the provisions contained in Art. III, Secs. 56 and 57 of the Constitution of Texas are inapplicable to the Act here under consideration and that the passage of such Act, under the circumstances shown, constituted a valid exercise of the law making power expressly vested in the Legislature by the terms of Art. V. Secs. 1 and 22 of the Constitution.")
  • Simpson v. State, 137 S.W.2d 1035, 1037 (Tex.Crim.App. 1940) ("Through the Assistant District Attorney of Harris County, the State has filed a motion for rehearing predicated on the contention that the County Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court in cases involving official misconduct. Article 5, Section 8 of our State Constitution, Vernon's Ann. St., reads in part: 'The District Court shall have original jurisdiction . . . . A conviction for an offense involving 'official misconduct' is so far reaching in its consequences that the framers of our Constitution may well have considered the result and for that reason in their wisdom lodged jurisdiction to try such offenses in the District Court.")
  • Hooper Lumber Co. v. Texas Fixture Co., 230 S.W. 141, 141 (Tex. 1921) ("Appellant's claim was a liquidated demand for $202.50, of which exclusive jurisdiction was given by the Constitution to the county court. It was not shown that this demand embraced any cause of action, either optional or severable, for the amount sought to be remitted. Appellant appears to have undertaken to deprive the county court of its exclusive jurisdiction by merely willing that an arbitrary part of its demand be extinguished. . . . The demand remained one within the county court's jurisdiction, and appellee had the right, on his seasonably interposed objection, to have the suit determined by that court.")
  • Lauraine v. Ashe, 191 S.W. 563, 566 (Tex. 1917) ("While it is customary to speak of the jurisdiction of the County Court over matters relating to estates of deceased persons under administration as 'exclusive,' and the entire current of our judicial decisions is to carefully protect the jurisdiction of that court over such matters, as it ought to be, yet it is plainly recognized that questions . . . for the settlement of which the probate jurisdiction of the County Court is inadequate, and in such cases, notwithstanding the administration, resort may be had to the equity powers of the District Court for the determination of those questions, the judgment to be performed through the Probate Court.")
  • Ex parte Reeves, 103 S.W. 478, 480 (Tex. 1907) ("It is equally clear that the Constitution confided the appointment of guardians of minors . . . . We think the words 'business of minors,' found in section 16, mean business growing out of the administration of their estate, and that they cannot be aptly applied to controversies over their custody. It would seem that in framing the provisions of sections 8 and 16 of article 5 of the Constitution the able lawyers who drew it had in view the jurisdiction exercised by courts of equity over minors, and intended to confer so much as relates to guardianship to the county courts and that which was exercised over their custody merely to the district courts.")
  • San Angelo Nat. Bank v. Fitzpatrick, 30 S.W. 1053, 1054 (Tex. 1895) ("The question is not without difficulty, but we are of opinion that the intention of the amendment was merely to enlarge the power of the legislature, so as to enable it to provide for the appointment of a special judge, and not to take away the power of providing for a transfer to the district court. We are aware that the word 'may' . . . . If it had been the purpose to give the legislature no discretion in the matter, it seems to us a term would have been employed the import of which was not doubtful, and it would have declared unmistakably that it was the duty of the legislature to provide for the appointment of a special judge.")
  • Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Rainbolt, 4 S.W. 356, 356 (Tex. 1887) ("Section 16 of the same article, in defining the jurisdiction of the county courts, contains this language: 'And they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases, when the matter in controversy shall exceed two hundred dollars, and not exceed five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest; and concurrent jurisdiction with the district court when the matter in controversy shall exceed five hundred dollars, and not exceed one thousand dollars, exclusive of interest.' . . . There is an evident mistake, and we must determine, by construction, which of the two provisions expresses the real intent of the framers of the constitution.")
  • Brazoria County v. Calhoun, 61 Tex. 223, 223 (1884) ("Does an appeal lie from a justice's court where the judgment rendered by the justice is for less than $20, but the matter in controversy is over that amount? The sixteenth section of the fifth article of our constitution gives the county court appellate jurisdiction in civil cases, of which justices' courts have original jurisdiction, when the judgment of the court appealed from shall exceed $20, exclusive of costs, and in no others. Art. 1165 of the Revised Statutes provides that the county court shall have appellate jurisdiction in . . . when the judgment of the court appealed from or the amount in controversy shall exceed $20, exclusive of costs.")

Library Resources

Online Resources

Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_V,_Section_16&oldid=1399"