Could the Texas Legislature create a county court at law that sat somewhere other than the county seat?

Texas AG Opinion JM-90: Location of a County Court at Law

Plain-English summary

JM-90 concluded that the Texas Legislature could create a county court at law that conducted proceedings at a location within the county other than the county seat.

"In our opinion, the legislature is authorized to create a county court at law to sit at some location in the county other than the county seat."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

County courts at law were legislative courts created under article V, section 1, while constitutional county courts arose under article V, section 15. JM-90 found no constitutional provision requiring the legislative courts to sit at the county seat.

"County courts at law are established under authority of this provision."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

"The constitutional county courts are established by article V, section 15 of the Texas Constitution."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

"There is no constitutional provision which would require county courts at law to conduct their proceedings at the county seat."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

The opinion also distinguished article 1602, which required terms of the constitutional county court to be held at the county seat, because that statute did not refer to county courts at law.

"Article 1602, V.T.C.S., provides that all terms of the county court be held at the county seat. However, this statute refers to county courts and not to county courts at law."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What constitutional provision authorized county courts at law?

JM-90 relied on article V, section 1, which allowed the legislature to establish other courts and prescribe their jurisdiction and organization.

"The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Did article 1602 require a county court at law to sit at the county seat?

No. The opinion read article 1602 as applying to the constitutional county court, not a county court at law.

"However, this statute refers to county courts and not to county courts at law."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Could county commissioners designate an auxiliary court outside the county seat?

JM-90 noted that section 4 of article 1605a-1 authorized commissioners courts to designate outside facilities as auxiliary courts for non-jury proceedings.

"Section 4 of article 1605a-1, V.T.C.S., authorizes a commissioners court to designate facilities outside of the county seat as auxiliary courts for purposes of conducting non-jury proceedings."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Why did the opinion discuss the constitutional rule for district courts?

Article V, section 7 expressly addressed where district courts conducted proceedings, while JM-90 found no comparable location rule for county courts at law.

"The constitutional provisions regarding county courts at law may be contrasted with article V, section 7, which provides that a district court 'shall conduct its proceedings at the county seat of the county in which the case is pending, except as otherwise provided by law.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

What happened to the older county-seat rule discussed in Turner?

JM-90 said later constitutional language and cases had displaced Turner's county-seat reasoning for legislatively created courts.

"The 1949 addition to article V, section 7 invalidated this holding."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

"Thus, the Turner v. Tucker discussion on article IX, section 2, has not been applied to legislatively created courts."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Background and constitutional framework

Representative Bob Bush asked whether the legislature could create a county court at law that sat somewhere in the county other than the county seat.

"You ask whether the legislature may create a county court at law to sit at some location within the county other than the county seat."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Article V, section 1 authorized the legislature to establish additional courts and prescribe their jurisdiction and organization.

"The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

JM-90 treated statutes as subject to later amendment or implied repeal and noted an existing statute that permitted auxiliary court facilities outside the county seat.

"Moreover, a statute is subject to amendment or implied repeal by a later statute."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

"Section 4 of article 1605a-1, V.T.C.S., authorizes a commissioners court to designate facilities outside of the county seat as auxiliary courts for purposes of conducting non-jury proceedings."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Turner v. Tucker had invalidated a Texarkana court before the 1949 amendment because the court performed principal district-court functions outside the Bowie County seat. JM-90 explained that later law did not apply Turner's separate county-seat-removal theory to legislative courts.

"Prior to the 1949 amendment to article V, section 7, the Texas Supreme Court held invalid the creation at Texarkana of a district court called the 'Texarkana Court at Law' on the ground that a district court must be located at the county seat."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

"The court of appeals in Jordan v. Crudgington, 225 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1949, no writ), held that a statute establishing a court of domestic relations was unconstitutional."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

"The supreme court reversed and found the statute constitutional except for three provisions."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

"In Cox v. Wood, 256 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1953), the supreme court held that a juvenile court was not required to sit at the county seat of Dallas County as it existed when Dallas became the county seat."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Holding

"The legislature may create a county court at law to sit at some location in the county other than the county seat."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Citations and references

Constitutional and statutory provisions quoted or discussed by JM-90:

• "Section 1 of article V of the Texas Constitution" Official PDF
• "article V, section 15 of the Texas Constitution" Official PDF
• "Article 1602, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
• "Section 4 of article 1605a-1, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
• "article IX, section 2 of the Texas Constitution" Official PDF

Cases cited by JM-90:

• "Sterrett v. Morgan, 294 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1956, no writ)" Official PDF
• "Popham v. Patterson, 51 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1932)" Official PDF
• "Townsend v. Terrell, 16 S.W.2d 1063 (Tex. 1929)" Official PDF
• "Turner v. Tucker, 258 S.W. 149 (Tex. 1924)" Official PDF
• "Jordan v. Crudgington, 225 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1949, no writ)" Official PDF
• "Jordan v. Crudgington, 231 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 1950)" Official PDF
• "Cox v. Wood, 256 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1953)" Official PDF

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0090
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0090.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

November 9, 1983

Honorable Bob Bush
Chairman
Committee on Judiciary
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78769

Opinion No. JM-90

Re: Whether a county court at law must be located at the county seat

Dear Representative Bush:

You ask whether the legislature may create a county court at law to sit at some location within the county other than the county seat.

Section 1 of article V of the Texas Constitution provides in part as follows:

The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof . . . .

County courts at law are established under authority of this provision. Sterrett v. Morgan, 294 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1956, no writ). The constitutional county courts are established by article V, section 15 of the Texas Constitution. See also Tex. Const. art. V, §1.

There is no constitutional provision which would require county courts at law to conduct their proceedings at the county seat. See Tex. Const. art. V, §1, cf. arts. V, §§15-17 (provisions on county judges, jurisdiction, and terms of county court).

Article 1602, V.T.C.S., provides that all terms of the county court be held at the county seat. However, this statute refers to county courts and not to county courts at law. Moreover, a statute is subject to amendment or implied repeal by a later statute. See, e.g., Popham v. Patterson, 51 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1932); Townsend v. Terrell, 16 S.W.2d 1063 (Tex. 1929). Section 4 of article 1605a-1, V.T.C.S., authorizes a commissioners court to designate facilities outside of the county seat as auxiliary courts for purposes of conducting non-jury proceedings.

The constitutional provisions regarding county courts at law may be contrasted with article V, section 7, which provides that a district court "shall conduct its proceedings at the county seat of the county in which the case is pending, except as otherwise provided by law." (Emphasis added). The underlined language was added by a 1949 amendment. See HJR No. 22, Acts 1949, 51st Session at 1496; Table I, Votes on Proposed Amendments to the Texas Constitution, 1875-1949, Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., at 1621, 1627.

Prior to the 1949 amendment to article V, section 7, the Texas Supreme Court held invalid the creation at Texarkana of a district court called the "Texarkana Court at Law" on the ground that a district court must be located at the county seat. Turner v. Tucker, 258 S.W. 149 (Tex. 1924). Boston, and not Texarkana, is the county seat of Bowie County. The legislature granted the "Texarkana Court at Law" most of the jurisdiction in civil cases exercised by the district court within Bowie, as well as much of the jurisdiction exercised by the county court. The supreme court stated that "a court empowered to discharge principal functions of the district court must be regarded as a district court in giving effect to the command of the amendment." 258 S.W. at 150. The 1949 addition to article V, section 7 invalidated this holding.

The Turner v. Tucker court also relied on article IX, section 2 of the Texas Constitution, which concerns the removal of the county seat. The opinion noted that a county seat was originally called the seat of justice in the county, and that to permit the establishment of the "Texarkana Court at Law" at Texarkana would remove the county seat without complying with the procedures set out in article IX, section 2.

Subsequent cases have ignored this secondary holding in Turner v. Tucker, or have overruled it sub silentio. The court of appeals in Jordan v. Crudgington, 225 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1949, no writ), held that a statute establishing a court of domestic relations was unconstitutional. The court's jurisdiction would be equal to that of a district court yet many provisions of the creating statute could not be constitutionally applied to a district court; for example, it did not require the court to sit at the county seat. The supreme court reversed and found the statute constitutional except for three provisions: it provided for terms of office of more than two years; provided for the removal of the judge and clerk by the juvenile board; and provided for a jury of fewer than twelve persons. Jordan v. Crudgington, 231 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 1950).

In Cox v. Wood, 256 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1953), the supreme court held that a juvenile court was not required to sit at the county seat of Dallas County as it existed when Dallas became the county seat. Thus, the Turner v. Tucker discussion on article IX, section 2, has not been applied to legislatively created courts. See also Attorney General Opinion C-391 (1965) (1949 amendment to article V, section 7 authorizes legislation locating district court elsewhere in county than at county seat).

In our opinion, the legislature is authorized to create a county court at law to sit at some location in the county other than the county seat.

SUMMARY

The legislature may create a county court at law to sit at some location in the county other than the county seat.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton