Difference between revisions of "Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 8"

From Texas Legal Guide
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
* ''De Shazo v. Webb'', 113 S.W.2d 519, 524 (Tex. 1938) ("The very purpose of the 1891 amendment to section 8 of article 5 of our Constitution was to aid in the preservation and enforcement of the purity of the conduct of elections. . . . The capacity conferred by articles 3069 and 3070 on certain parties to contest elections, other than for the purpose of electing officers, is not based on any individual property right; but upon the theory that a remedy should be furnished, legislative in its nature, whereby fraudulent elections may be contested, and the wrong thereby inflicted righted. ''Massay v. Studer'', Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 227.")
 
* ''De Shazo v. Webb'', 113 S.W.2d 519, 524 (Tex. 1938) ("The very purpose of the 1891 amendment to section 8 of article 5 of our Constitution was to aid in the preservation and enforcement of the purity of the conduct of elections. . . . The capacity conferred by articles 3069 and 3070 on certain parties to contest elections, other than for the purpose of electing officers, is not based on any individual property right; but upon the theory that a remedy should be furnished, legislative in its nature, whereby fraudulent elections may be contested, and the wrong thereby inflicted righted. ''Massay v. Studer'', Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 227.")
 +
 +
* ''Messner v. Giddings'', 65 Tex. 301, [https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28509/m1/325/ 309] (1886) ("If it is claimed that in the court, as a court of equity, under that clause, the power existed, it must be replied, that the district court, whether as a court of law or a court of equity, had only such power as the constitution gave it. There is no such thing as the inherent power of a court, if, by that, be meant a power which a court may exercise without a law authorizing it. That clause of the constitution empowered district courts to . . . ; but it in no manner conferred upon such courts the power to exercise any and every power, which, at any time, may have been exercised by courts of chancery in England or elsewhere.").
  
 
}}
 
}}
  
 
[[Category:TxCon ArtV Sec]]
 
[[Category:TxCon ArtV Sec]]

Latest revision as of 19:25, October 11, 2019

As amended November 5, 1985:

District Court jurisdiction consists of exclusive, appellate, and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body. District Court judges shall have the power to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction.

The District Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over the County Commissioners Court, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.

Editor Comments

This section, which defines the jurisdiction of the district courts, was greatly simplified in 1985.

The meaning of the phrase "general supervisory control" that appears in the second paragraph has always been unclear.

Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

None.

Historic Decisions

  • De Shazo v. Webb, 113 S.W.2d 519, 524 (Tex. 1938) ("The very purpose of the 1891 amendment to section 8 of article 5 of our Constitution was to aid in the preservation and enforcement of the purity of the conduct of elections. . . . The capacity conferred by articles 3069 and 3070 on certain parties to contest elections, other than for the purpose of electing officers, is not based on any individual property right; but upon the theory that a remedy should be furnished, legislative in its nature, whereby fraudulent elections may be contested, and the wrong thereby inflicted righted. Massay v. Studer, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 227.")
  • Messner v. Giddings, 65 Tex. 301, 309 (1886) ("If it is claimed that in the court, as a court of equity, under that clause, the power existed, it must be replied, that the district court, whether as a court of law or a court of equity, had only such power as the constitution gave it. There is no such thing as the inherent power of a court, if, by that, be meant a power which a court may exercise without a law authorizing it. That clause of the constitution empowered district courts to . . . ; but it in no manner conferred upon such courts the power to exercise any and every power, which, at any time, may have been exercised by courts of chancery in England or elsewhere.").

Library Resources

Online Resources