Judiciary of Texas

Last updated

The structure of the Judiciary of Texas is laid out in Article 5 of the Texas Constitution and is further defined by statute, in particular the Texas Government Code and the Texas Probate Code.

The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary can also be thought of as the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make statutory law or enforce law, but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. However, in some countries the judiciary does make common law, setting precedent for other courts to follow. This branch of the state is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law.

Texas State of the United States of America

Texas is the second largest state in the United States by both area and population. Geographically located in the South Central region of the country, Texas shares borders with the U.S. states of Louisiana to the east, Arkansas to the northeast, Oklahoma to the north, New Mexico to the west, and the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas to the southwest, while the Gulf of Mexico is to the southeast.

Statute Formal written document that creates law

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a city, state, or country. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. Statutes are rules made by legislative bodies; they are distinguished from case law or precedent, which is decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies.


The structure is exceedingly complex, featuring many layers of courts, numerous instances of overlapping jurisdiction (both in terms of amount in controversy and territorial), myriad differences between counties, and an unusual bifurcated appellate system at the top level found in only one other state: Oklahoma.

The Municipal Courts are the most active courts, with the County-level and District Courts handling most other cases and often sharing the same courthouse.

Administration is the responsibility of the Texas Supreme Court, which is aided by the Texas Office of Court Administration, the Texas Judicial Council and the State Bar of Texas, which it oversees. The State Bar of Texas (SBOT) [1] is a mandatory bar, rather than merely an association of lawyers (such as the ABA or local bar associations). In order to practice law in Texas courts, an attorney must be licensed, must stay abreast of legal developments through CLE programs, and must pay dues. The public can obtain basic information on all Texas attorneys, including their bar number, license status, and disciplinary record, from the Bar's website.

State Bar of Texas

The State Bar of Texas is an agency of the judiciary under the administrative control of the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Bar is responsible for assisting the Texas Supreme Court in overseeing all attorneys licensed to practice law in Texas. It is the fifth largest organization of lawyers in the United States. The State Bar is headquartered in the Texas Law Center at 1414 Colorado Street in Austin.

History and perception

In the 19th century, Texas had a reputation for arbitrary "frontier justice"; in one notorious example highlighted by Stanford legal historian Lawrence M. Friedman, its appellate courts upheld a conviction of "guily" (where the t was omitted) in 1879 but reversed a conviction of "guity" (where the l was omitted) in 1886. [2] [3] The latter decision actually attempted to distinguish the earlier one by trying to explain why the letter l was more important than the letter t. The poor quality of the state's judicial system in the period has been attributed to its then shortage of proper law schools and law libraries, as well as the traditional preference of Texans for "'self-help' justice as practiced in the courts of 'Judge Winchester' or 'Judge Lynch.'" [4]

Frontier justice is extrajudicial punishment that is motivated by the nonexistence of law and order or dissatisfaction with justice. The phrase can also be used to describe a prejudiced judge. Lynching and gunfighting are considered forms of frontier justice.

Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School is a professional graduate school of Stanford University, located in Silicon Valley near Palo Alto, California. Established in 1893, Stanford Law has been ranked one of the top three law schools in the country, with Yale Law School and Harvard Law School, every year since 1992. Since 2016, Stanford Law has been ranked 2nd. Stanford Law is consistently regarded as one of the most prestigious law schools in the world.

Lawrence M. Friedman is an American law professor, historian, expert in American legal history, and author of nonfiction and fiction books. He has been a member of the faculty at Stanford Law School since 1968.


The Texas Supreme Court Building TexasSupremeCourtBuilding.JPG
The Texas Supreme Court Building

Texas is the only state besides Oklahoma to have a bifurcated appellate system at the highest level. [5] The Texas Supreme Court hears appeals involving civil matters, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hears appeals involving criminal matters. [5] Sometimes, the dividing line is murky, especially with respect to jurisdiction in mandamus and habeas corpus cases. See, e.g. Justice Willet's dissent in In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). [6] Unlike its counterpart in Oklahoma, the Texas Supreme Court is not really supreme when it comes to a jurisdictional ping-pong or tug-of-war between the two high courts because both are co-equal.

Judiciary of Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Court System is the judicial system for the U.S. State of Oklahoma. Based in Oklahoma City, the court system is a unified state court system that functions under the Chief Justice of Oklahoma who is its administrator-in-chief.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) is the court of last resort for all criminal matters in the State of Texas, United States. The Court, which is based in the Supreme Court Building in Downtown Austin, is composed of a Presiding Judge and eight judges.

Article V, Section 1, states:

[t]he judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in one Court of Criminal Appeals, in Courts of Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners Courts, in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such other courts as may be provided by law. The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto.

As such, the Texas Legislature has created additional courts to address caseload pressures driven by population growth in different areas of the state. District courts are (usually) consecutively numbered regardless of whether they are specialize to handle criminal, civil, or family matters (though in some counties, Criminal District Courts have separate numbering systems, an example being Dallas County which has seven such courts numbered 1 through 11 [7] ). The highest numbers indicate that the court was created recently, but the number alone provides no clue as to location of the new court and the appellate district within which it is located. As such, a comprehensive list of Dallas courts can be found to include 60 courts in Dallas. [8]

Further sections of Article V spell out the basic requirements for each court's jurisdiction and for its officers.

Supreme Court

The Texas Supreme Court hears appeals involving civil matters and does not hear any appeals involving criminal matters except when the defendant is a juvenile. Under Texas law, juvenile proceedings (even those involving criminal activity) are considered civil matters under the Texas Family Code; thus, the Texas Supreme Court hears such appeals, but it defers to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in matters where the Texas Penal Code must be interpreted. The Supreme Court also maintains responsibility for attorney licensing and discipline.

Court of Criminal Appeals

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hears appeals on criminal cases excluding those involving juvenile proceedings. Cases in which the death penalty was imposed are directly and automatically appealed to this court, bypassing the intermediate Courts of Appeals, which hear both civil and criminal cases.

Courts of Appeals

The Old Harris County Courthouse, home of the First Court of Appeals of Texas and Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston Harris County 1910 Courthouse Restored Houston Texas.jpg
The Old Harris County Courthouse, home of the First Court of Appeals of Texas and Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston

Texas has 14 Courts of Appeals, which have intermediate appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases. Death penalty cases, however, are automatically appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and thus skip the intermediate tier in the appellate court hierarchy.

The total number of intermediate appellate seats is 80, with membership ranging from three to 13 justices per court, as set by statute. All cases are heard by a three-justice panel unless a hearing en banc is ordered (except where a particular court has only three justices assigned to it, in which instance all cases are automatically heard en banc; an example is the 12th Court of Appeals). The en banc process is used to maintain consistency in the court's jurisprudence, to overrule existing precedent that is binding on individual panels, and to set new precedent on an unsettled question of substantive law or procedure.

The Texas Legislature determines which counties are included within a particular court of appeals' district, and has shifted counties between courts to balance the docket. The Texas Supreme Court seeks to even out imbalances in appellate caseloads on an ongoing basis with docket-equalization orders that provide for transfers of batches of cases from the busiest appeals courts to others with spare capacity.

In an oddity, two appeals courts, the First and the Fourteenth, both have their seat at the re-purposed historic 1910 Harris County Courthouse in Houston and exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the same ten counties, the largest of which is Harris County. Parties who want to appeal a judgment or other order from a trial court in these counties are required to state in their notice of appeal that they wish to appeal to either the first or the fourteenth court of appeals, and then have to wait for the result of random assignment to one or the other. They will promptly receive a notice from the designated court advising them that they have not yet paid the required $205 filing fee to prosecute the appeal, and that their appeal may be dismissed if they do not do so within 20 days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees at time of filing, unless excused). This is a standard form letter that is sent even though nobody knows which court they going to end up in when they filed the notice of appeal. The notice must be filed in the trial court, but the payment has to be made in the court of appeals.

An even more bizarre situation occurs in East and North Texas, where the 6th Court has four counties Gregg, Rusk, Upshur, and Wood which overlap with the 12th Court, and also has Hunt County overlapping with the 5th Court.

District Courts

The Texas district courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction.

The district court has exclusive jurisdiction over felony cases, cases involving title to land, and election contest cases. It shares jurisdiction with the county courts, and in some case justice of the peace courts, for civil cases (its lowest limit for hearing a case is a mere $200 in controversy, while JP courts can hear cases up to $10,000). Family law jurisdiction varies depending on the existence of a county court-at-law; in some counties, the district courts share jurisdiction over divorces, child custody and support matters, adoptions and child welfare cases with county courts at law. Also, probate jurisdiction varies depending on the existence of a statutory probate court in the county. In some larger counties, such as Harris County, the district courts are specialized, some hearing family matters, others hearing criminal cases, and a third set hearing non-family civil cases.

In more rural areas, as many as five counties share a district court; urban counties, on the other hand, have multiple district courts, which in some cases specialize in civil, criminal, family law or juvenile matters.

One of the most unusual features of Texas trial courts, including district courts, is the tradition of having only one judge per trial court. [9] Single-judge trial courts were the dominant form of American state trial court organization well into the late 19th century. [9] According to Roscoe Pound, 23 of the 34 states in the Union adhered to that model on the eve of the American Civil War. [9] Accordingly, in 1836, this then-commonplace and familiar model was duly written into the Constitution of the Republic of Texas. [9] Section 2 of Article IV provided for "not less than three nor more than eight" judicial districts, and that "a judge" would be appointed for each district. [9] Similar clauses implying one judge per court appeared in all subsequent constitutions. [9] For example, Section 7 of Article V of the 1876 state constitution provided for 26 judicial districts (subject to the right of the Legislature to increase or diminish them), and that "a judge" would be elected for each district. [10] This rigid constitutional language was finally fixed by a constitutional amendment in 1985, but by then, the tradition of one judge per court was thoroughly entrenched.

As a result, instead of adding more judges to existing courts in response to population growth, the Texas Legislature adds more courts. [9] In February 1889, the Legislature tried to constitutionally meet the need for two district court judges in both Dallas and Bexar Counties by dividing each county into two districts, running the district boundary through the middle of the county courthouse, and granting each district court concurrent jurisdiction over the entire county. [9] [11] The Dallas County courthouse burned down on January 7, 1890, and both district courts reopened a month later in temporary rented quarters which were entirely inside of the 44th District. [9] [11] This arrangement was immediately challenged, and in response, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on March 12, 1890 that the state constitution did not prohibit both Dallas County district courts from operating from a shared location inside the same district. [9] [11] This is why today, a typical Texas urban courthouse is home to many single-judge trial courts of concurrent jurisdiction over the same county, each of which is legally organized as a separate court with its own unique name and number. [9] In contrast, in virtually all other U.S. states and the federal government, a trial court can have multiple judges sitting in separate departments who all share coequal authority to act in the name of the same trial court.

Each district court is uniquely numbered on a statewide basis according to its sequence of creation by the Legislature (in other words, the numbers do not reflect the courts' geography). The same is not true of county-level courts, which are numbered sequentially in individual counties.

The first Texas state constitution of 1845 tried to ameliorate the inflexibility of a single-judge trial court model by also authorizing judges to "exchange benches or hold court for each other when they deem it expedient." [9] Relying on this language, the Legislature enacted a variety of procedural laws over the years to get as close as possible to a de facto unified district court in the urban counties that needed multiple district judges, while remaining faithful to the constitutionally mandated structure of single-judge trial courts. [9] However, these procedures are still not as flexible as simply merging all judges in a county into a single district court, and purported failures to properly follow such procedures occasionally result in another basis for appeal. [9]

Probate Courts

In another unique twist, the Constitution grants the Legislature the authority to determine which court handles probate matters. Thus, in ten of the 15 largest counties (specifically, the counties of Bexar, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Galveston, Harris, Hidalgo, Tarrant, and Travis) the Legislature has established one or more Statutory Probate Courts. These specialized courts handle matters of probate, guardianship, trust, and mental health. In some counties, the statutory probate courts also hear condemnation cases. There are no jurisdictional monetary limits on the types of lawsuits that a statutory probate court may hear. As such, their jurisdiction at times overlaps that of the district court.

Constitutional County Courts

The Harris County Civil Courthouse HarrisCountyCivilCourthouseTexas.JPG
The Harris County Civil Courthouse

Not to be confused with County Courts at Law, which are created by statute, there is a County Court for each of the 254 counties in Texas. The Texas Constitution states that "[t]here shall be established in each county in this State a County Court ..." Sections 15 through 17 of Article V, as well as Chapters 25 and 26 of the Texas Government Code, outline the duties of these Courts and their officers.

The county court has exclusive jurisdiction over "Class A" and "Class B" misdemeanors (these offenses can involve jail time), concurrent jurisdiction over civil cases where the amount in controversy is moderately sized, and appellate jurisdiction over JP and municipal court cases (for municipal court cases, this may involve a trial de novo if the lower court is not a "court of record").

County court judges are not required to be licensed attorneys. Due to this, defendants in counties which only have the traditional constitutional county court may ask to have their cases transferred to that county's district court for trial if the district judge consents . However, defendants in counties with the county court at law structure do not have this option, as the county court at law judges are required to have law degrees.

Section 15 states that the County Court shall be a "court of record". Section 16 states that the County Court "has jurisdiction as provided by law"; Section 17 states that the County Court shall hold terms as provided by law and that County Court juries shall consist of six persons, but in civil cases a jury shall not be empaneled unless one of the parties demands it and pays a jury fee or files an affidavit stating that it is unable to do so.

Since the county judge is also responsible for presiding over the Commissioners Court (the main executive and legislative body of the county), in 94 counties the Texas Legislature has established county courts at law to relieve the county judge of judicial duties. The first multi-county statutory county court (composed of Fisher, Mitchell, and Nolan counties) was created in 2013. In most counties with courts at law, the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the constitutional county court has been transferred to the county courts at law. Unlike the county judge, judges of the county courts of law are required to be attorneys. The county courts at law may hear both civil and criminal matters, or hear them separately, depending on how the Legislature has structured them (Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Harris, and Tarrant counties have "county criminal courts" or "county criminal courts at law" that hear only criminal cases).

Statutory County Courts at Law

Statutory County Courts at Law, not to be confused with Constitutional County Courts, generally have broader jurisdiction than constitutional county courts. Statutory County Courts can generally entertain lawsuits in which the amount in controversy is over $500 but not over $200,000. [12] However, unlike constitutional county courts, the jurisdiction of Statutory County Courts can vary from county to county. For example, in Dallas County, Statutory County Courts have jurisdiction nearly as broad as that of District Courts. [12] In Harris County, the genera jurisdictional cap is $200,000 but these courts also have exclusive jurisdiction of eminent domain proceedings regardless of the amount in controversy. [13] In Travis County, the amount in controversy for matters the Statutory County Court can entertain ranges from $500 to $250,000. [12] There is no clear policy reason for the varying jurisdictions of the Statutory County Courts.

Municipal Courts

An Austin Municipal Court AustinMunicipalCourt.JPG
An Austin Municipal Court

Under the authority granted it by Section 1 of Article V, the Legislature has allowed for the creation of municipal courts in each incorporated city in Texas, by voter approval creating such court. Chapters 29 and 30 of the Texas Government Code outline the duties of these Courts and their officers.

Municipal courts in Texas come into contact with more defendants than all other Texas courts combined. The subject matter of municipal courts relates to crimes relating to public safety and quality of life issues. In recent years, municipal courts and justice court in Texas have become the primary venue for acts of misconduct committed by children.

Within the city limits, these courts have shared jurisdiction with the JP courts on Class C criminal misdemeanor cases, and have exclusive jurisdiction on cases involving city ordinances. Municipal courts have limited civil jurisdiction over public matters relating to public safety (e.g., dangerous dog determinations). Confusion surrounding a municipal court's civil jurisdiction is complicated that if a municipal court is a "court of record," the Legislature has authorized municipalities to adopt ordinances that give municipal courts concurrent jurisdiction over substandard building cases with county and/or district courts. The matter of civil jurisdiction has been further confused by the advent of civil penalties for conduct that can be prosecuted as a Class C misdemeanor (e.g. certain parking violations, red light camera violations).

As a general rule, the municipal courts are not "courts of record" (i.e., no court reporter recorded and transcribed the proceedings), and thus an appeal to the county level would require a whole new trial (i.e., a trial de novo). This proved to be a loophole for some defendants in traffic cases, who betted on the officer not being able to attend, and thus having the case dismissed. Furthermore, the de novo trials crowded the dockets of already busy county courts at law. Many major cities—such as those in Austin, El Paso, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio—have chosen to convert their municipal courts to courts of record (this also requires voter approval) to close this loophole.

Municipal court cases are generally appealed to the county court level, but cannot be appealed beyond that level unless the fine is more than $100 or a constitutional matter is asserted.

Justice of the Peace Courts

A JP court of Judge Roy Bean in 1900 Old langtry tx.jpg
A JP court of Judge Roy Bean in 1900

The lowest court level in Texas is the Justice of the Peace Court (also called Justice Court or JP Court). Each county has at least one JP Court. [14] Sections 18 and 19 of Article V, as well as Chapters 27 and 28 of the Texas Government Code, outline the duties of these Courts and their officers.

Section 19 sets forth the minimum jurisdiction of the JP court:

JP cases are appealed to the county court level where the case results in a trial de novo. The perfection of the appeal vacates the judgment of the JP court, which means that the higher court does not reverse or affirm the JP court when it resolves the appeal. The case is instead retried on appeal, but the jurisdictional limits of the JP court, rather than those of the court of record, apply. Appeals from JP court also differ from appeals to the courts of appeals in that they require the posting of bond. This makes such appeals more onerous to losing defendants than appeals from county courts to the court of appeals unless the defendant qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.

In criminal cases, cases beginning in justice court cannot be appealed beyond the county level court unless the fine is more than $100 or a constitutional matter is asserted.

Under Section 18, the number of JP's (and associated constables; each county has as many constables as JP's) is dependent on the size of the county:


The Texas Law Center, which houses the State Bar of Texas TexasLawCenter.JPG
The Texas Law Center, which houses the State Bar of Texas

The Texas Supreme Court has constitutional responsibility for the efficient administration of the judicial system and possesses the authority to make rules of administration applicable to the courts [15] in addition to promulgation and amend rules governing procedure in trial and appellate courts, and rules of evidence. [16] The chief justice of the Supreme Court, presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, chief justices of each of the 14 courts of appeals, and judges of each of the trial courts are generally responsible for the administration of their respective courts. [15]

There is a local administrative district judge in each county, as well as a local administrative statutory county court judge in each county that has a statutory county court. [15] In counties with two or more district courts, a local administrative district judge is elected by the district judges in the county for a term not to exceed two years; in counties with two or more statutory county courts, a local administrative statutory county court judge is elected by the statutory county court judges for a term not to exceed two years. [17] The local administrative judge is charged with implementing the local rules of administration, supervising the expeditious movement of court caseloads, and other administrative duties. [18]

eFileTexas.gov is the official electronic court filing (e-filing) system. [19] Each county maintains (or does not maintain) their own docket management and retrieval systems, [20] similar to PACER for the federal government. There is no longer an officially published reporter. West's Texas Cases (a Texas-specific version of the South Western Reporter ) includes reported opinions of the Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Courts of Appeals. [21] [22] The Texas Reports includes Supreme Court opinions until July 1962, and the Texas Criminal Reports includes Court of Criminal Appeals opinions until November 1962. [22] There is no systematic reporting of decisions of trial courts. [21] Court opinions can generally be freely accessed on the web from the various courts' websites, with appellate opinions generally being available from 1997–2002 onwards. [23]

In 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals's web sites were updated and migrated to new web addresses (with automatic forwarding from the old URLs). Each court's website allows for case and opinion searches using various types of input in addition to cause number, such as party name, attorney name, attorney bar number, file date/date range, and full-text search using key words. All current opinion are now released as pdf documents, rather than html, and thus standardized, although different courts use different templates and citation/footnoting styles, which makes for some degree of variation in appearance. Additionally, courts of appeals are now also making procedural orders, briefs, and motions available online. The record on appeal, consisting of the Clerk's Record and the Reporter's Record, however, is generally not posted online even if the parties' briefs are.

Appellate opinions are also available through Google Scholar. Google Scholar presents them in a format that is more user-friendly for online viewing (compared to the double-spaced PDFs in small font released by the courts), hotlinks cited cases, and provides other functionality, such as identification of subsequent citing cases and ranking of search results by relevancy or time (recency) and time-frame delimited searches. Google Scholar versions now also include attorney information for each decided case, but they do not (as of May 2018) provide a hotlink to the appellate dockets, which would be a very useful additional feature. Google instead uses the hot-linked cause numbers internally to link opinions in a case with the procedural orders issued in the same case that are also included in its database. By clicking the cause number, all documents available for a particular case in the Google Scholar database can be displayed on a search results page, and can be sorted into reverse chronological order if desired.

The Texas Judicial Council is the primary policy-making body for the judiciary. [24] It is responsible for studying and recommending changes to improve the administration of justice. [25] The Administrative Director of the Office of Court Administration serves as Executive Director for the Council.

The Texas Office of Court Administration provides information and research, technology services, budgetary and legal support, and other administrative assistance to a variety of judicial branch entities and courts, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Texas and the Chief Justice. [24] The office is led by an Administrative Director appointed by the Supreme Court and reporting to the Chief Justice.

The State Bar of Texas (the Texas Bar) is an agency of the judiciary under the administrative control of the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Bar is responsible for assisting the Texas Supreme Court in overseeing all attorneys licensed to practice law in Texas.


Judge Roy Bean, a Justice of the Peace and "The Law West of the Pecos" Roybean.jpg
Judge Roy Bean, a Justice of the Peace and "The Law West of the Pecos"

Judges, Judicial Selection, and Judicial Succession

In Texas, state judges are elected in partisan elections. [5] [26] Trial judges are elected for 4 years, and appellate court judges are elected for 6 years. [5] The Governor fills vacancies until the next election, and judges traditionally leave office before their last term is completed. [5] Early resignation followed by gubernatorial appointment of a successor is now part of the established practice of judicial selection in Texas. It serves as a mechanism whereby the party in control at the state level seeks to assure replacement of incumbents with successors of the same party, who then contest the elections as incumbents. It does not always work, however.

All elective positions in the executive and judicial branch are currently controlled by Republicans because the state as a whole is solidly red. Appellate and trial court judges, however, are elected from districts, and some of those districts are more competitive than Texas as a whole, and some even have a clear Democratic majority.

In the November 6, 2018 midterm elections numerous Republican appellate justices lost to Democratic challengers, entailing in a switch from Republican to Democratic majority control effective January 1, 2019 in Dallas and in the two Courts of Appeals in Houston, and major changes in the partisan makeup of other courts, including Austin and San Antonio.

There are other scenarios that can result in turnover on benches, but they are rare. Judges may be removed by voters in retention elections, by trial by jury, or by legislative address or impeachment if state judges. [27] The predominant source of change in the composition of the judiciary involves politics.

Some incumbent judges/justices who seek reelection are defeated in primary elections, others in general elections. The probability of election-driven turnover on district and appellate benches is affected by the nature of the concurrent elections (presidential or mid-term) and by partisan tides, at least in the more competitive counties and appellate districts, e.g. Dallas and Harris County/Houston (county-level) and San Antonio (appellate district level).

In 2006, several dozen Republican incumbents were swept off their benches by Democrats in Dallas County, and in 2008, many incumbents lost in Harris County. [28] There is a remedy for the "problem" of judgeships changing hands at the whim of the voters: The Governor has the authority to fill vacancies, and has used that authority to bring back Republican judges who had lost their benches thanks to straight-ticket voting. Additional slots and reappointment opportunities can be, and are, created when the Governor fills a vacancy on a higher court with a sitting judge on a lower court. In November 2018, however, such a great number of Republican incumbents lost their benches both at the trial court and appellate court levels that the chances of any one of them being reappointed to a vacant bench are very low despite continued Republican control of the Governorship and all other statewide offices.

District court judges are required to be licensed attorneys. In addition to judicial powers, district judges also have administrative duties as well. District judges may remove county officials , officials of a general-law municipality , and municipal court judges under certain circumstances. Also, they appoint and supervise the county auditor, oversee the operations of the adult and juvenile probation offices, and are granted "supervisory" jurisdiction over the county commissioners court.

County judges do not need to be lawyers, and most are not. [29] Sections 15 through 17 of Article V, as well as Chapters 25 and 26 of the Texas Government Code, outline the duties of County Court officers. Section 15 states that the county judge shall be "well informed in the law of the State", "a conservator of the peace", and shall be elected for a four-year term. The county judge is also responsible for presiding over the Commissioners Court (the main executive and legislative body of the county). County court at law judges are required to be lawyers. [29]

In one of the odd provisions of the Texas Government Code, there is no requirement that a municipal judge be an attorney if the municipal court is not a court of record (Chapter 29, Section 29.004), but the municipal judge must be a licensed attorney with at least two years experience in practicing Texas law if the municipal court is a court of record (Chapter 30, Section 30.00006). The Code provides for differing requirements for municipal judges in certain cities, such as:

The thirteen-member Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct hears complaints against judges, and may censure, reprimand, or recommend removal by the Supreme Court. [30] [27] It very rarely punishes judges; [30] out of more than 1,110 complaints it resolved in fiscal year 2009, only 70 disciplinary actions were taken. [27] [31]

Justices of the Peace

There is no requirement that the JP be an attorney. [32] However, the Texas Government Code requires a JP to attend an 80-hour course involving the performance of JP duties within one year after initial election, and a 20-hour course every year thereafter. In addition, the JP is an ex officio notary public.


A "magistrate" can be any judge or JP and can set bonds, arraign defendants, issue search and arrest warrants, and conduct criminal bond forfeiture hearings. [32] Five counties (Bexar, Dallas, Lubbock, Tarrant, and Travis) have district court magistrates who are appointed by district court judges and do not conduct trials. [33]


There are several prosecution offices: district attorneys, county attorneys, criminal district attorneys, and city attorneys. [34] District attorneys prosecute criminal cases in district courts and serve one or more counties in which they are elected for four-year terms. [35] County attorneys prosecute misdemeanor criminal cases and serve a single county in which they are elected for four-year terms. [36] Criminal district attorneys prosecute both felony and misdemeanor criminal cases and serve a single county in which they are elected for four-year terms. [14] City attorneys prosecute criminal cases in municipal courts. [14] If a county has only a district attorney or county attorney, this official prosecutes all criminal cases within the county. [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

State court (United States) court of a U.S. state

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the much smaller in case load and personnel, United States federal courts, handle different types of cases.

United States courts of appeals post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals or circuit courts are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system. A court of appeals decides appeals from the district courts within its federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other designated federal courts and administrative agencies.

Justice of the peace judicial officer, of a lower or puisne court, elected or appointed by means of a commission (letters patent) to keep the peace

A justice of the peace (JP) is a judicial officer of a lower or puisne court, elected or appointed by means of a commission to keep the peace. In past centuries the term commissioner of the peace was often used with the same meaning. Depending on the jurisdiction, such justices dispense summary justice or merely deal with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions. Justices of the peace are appointed or elected from the citizens of the jurisdiction in which they serve, and are usually not required to have any formal legal education in order to qualify for the office. Some jurisdictions have varying forms of training for JPs.

The Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in the New York State Unified Court System. It is vested with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction, although outside New York City it acts primarily as a court of civil jurisdiction, with most criminal matters handled in County Court.

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general competence which typically has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" relative to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts.

The Alaska Court System is the unified, centrally administered, and totally state-funded judicial system for the State of Alaska. The Alaska District Courts are the primary misdemeanor trial courts, the Alaska Superior Courts are the primary felony trial courts, and the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court of Appeals are the primary appellate courts. The Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is the administrative head of the Alaska Court System.

The Alaska Court of Appeals is an intermediate court of appeals in the State of Alaska's judicial department, created in 1980 by the Alaska Legislature as an additional appellate court to lessen the burden on the Alaska Supreme Court. The court of appeals consists of a chief judge and two associate judges, who are all appointed by the governor of Alaska and face judicial retention elections every eight years; the chief judge of the court of appeals is selected from among the three by the chief justice of the supreme court to serve a two-year term.

Judiciary of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

The Superior Court is the state court in the U.S. state of New Jersey, with statewide trial and appellate jurisdiction. The New Jersey Constitution of 1947 establishes the power of the New Jersey courts. Under the State Constitution, "'judicial power shall be vested in a Supreme Court, a Superior Court, County Courts and inferior courts of limited jurisdiction.'" The Superior Court has three divisions: the Appellate Division is essentially an intermediate appellate court while the Law and Chancery Divisions function as trial courts. The State Constitution renders the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division the intermediate appellate court, and "[a]ppeals may be taken to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court from the law and chancery divisions of the Superior Court and in such other causes as may be provided by law." Each division is in turn divided into various parts. "The trial divisions of the Superior Court are the principal trial courts of New Jersey. They are located within the State's various judicial geographic units, called 'vicinages,' R. 1:33-2(a), and are organized into two basic divisions: the Chancery Division and the Law Division".

The Texas Courts of Appeals are part of the Texas judicial system. In Texas, all cases appealed from district and county courts, criminal and civil, go to one of the fourteen Texas Courts of Appeals, with one exception: death penalty cases. The latter are taken directly to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest Texas court for criminal matters. The court of last resort for civil cases is the Texas Supreme Court. The number of justices on each intermediate court of appeals is set by statute.

The Judiciary of Colorado is established and authorized by Article VI of the Colorado Constitution as well as the law of Colorado. The various courts include the Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado district courts, Colorado county courts, Colorado water courts, and municipal courts. The administration of the state judicial system is the responsibility of the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court as its executive head, and is assisted by several other commissions. In Denver, the county and municipal courts are integrated and administratively separate from the state court system.

Oregon Judicial Department

The Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) is the judicial branch of government of the state of Oregon in the United States. The chief executive of the branch is the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court. Oregon’s judiciary consists primarily of four different courts: the Oregon Supreme Court, the Oregon Tax Court, the Oregon Court of Appeals, and the Oregon circuit courts. Additionally, the OJD includes the Council on Court Procedures, the Oregon State Bar, Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, and the Public Defense Services Commission. Employees of the court are the largest non-union group among state workers.

The Judiciary of Vermont is the state court system of Vermont, charged with Vermont law.

Judiciary of New York (state)

The Judiciary of New York is the judicial branch of the Government of New York, comprising all the courts of the State of New York

The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania is the unified state court system of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The government of North Carolina is divided into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. These consist of the Council of State, the bicameral legislature, and the state court system. The Constitution of North Carolina delineates the structure and function of the state government.

Judiciary of Louisiana

The Judiciary of Louisiana is defined under the Constitution and law of Louisiana and is composed of the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal, the District Courts, the Justice of the Peace Courts, the Mayor's Courts, the City Courts, and the Parish Courts. The Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court is the chief administrator of the judiciary, and its administration is aided by the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, and the Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

The Judiciary of Illinois is the unified court system of Illinois responsible for applying the Constitution and law of Illinois. It consists of the Supreme Court, Appellate Court, and circuit courts. The Supreme Court oversees the administration of the court system.

The Judiciary of Michigan is defined under the Michigan Constitution, law, and regulations as part of the Government of Michigan. The court system consists of the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals as the intermediate appellate court, the circuit courts and district courts as the two primary trial courts, and several administrative courts and specialized courts. The Supreme Court administers all the courts. The Michigan Supreme Court consists of seven members who are elected on non-partisan ballots for staggered eight-year terms, while state appellate court judges are elected to terms of six years and vacancies are filled by an appointment by the governor, and circuit court and district court judges are elected to terms of six years.


  1. http://www.texasbar.com/
  2. Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3rd ed. (New York: Touchstone, 2005), 299.
  3. Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 256.
  4. Bill Neal, Getting Away With Murder On The Texas Frontier: Notorious Killings & Celebrated Trials (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 2006), 5-8.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Maxwell, Crain & Santos 2010, p. 55.
  6. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=e.g.+In+re+Reece,+341+S.W.3d+360+(Tex.+2011)+(orig.+proceeding).+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&case=13629628230375350015&scilh=0
  7. http://www.dallascounty.org/department/courts/county_criminal.php
  8. http://www.dallascourts.com/forms/lstCourts.asp?division=num
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Clarence A. Guittard, Court Reform, Texas Style, 21 Sw. L. J. 451, 455-480 (1967). Available through HeinOnline.
  10. Tex. Const, art. V, § 7 (1885).
  11. 1 2 3 Wheeler v. Wheeler , 76 Tex. 489, 13 S.W. 305 (1890).
  12. 1 2 3 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.25.htm
  13. "Harris County Civil Courts at Law".
  14. 1 2 3 Anderson 1997, p. 19.
  15. 1 2 3 Administration 2012, p. 9.
  16. http://www.txcourts.gov/rules-forms/rules-standards.aspx
  17. Administration 2012, pp. 9-10.
  18. Administration 2012, p. 10.
  19. "eFileTexas.gov | EFileTexas.gov". eFileTexas.gov. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
  20. "Texas Courts Online | Case searches". Texas Office of Court Administration . Retrieved 17 August 2013.
  21. 1 2 Quarles & Cordon 2003, p. 73.
  22. 1 2 Quarles & Cordon 2008, p. 34.
  23. Quarles & Cordon 2008, pp. 35–36.
  24. 1 2 Annual Reports of the Judicial Support Agencies, Boards and Commissions: For the Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 2012 (PDF). Texas Office of Court Administration. December 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
  25. Reavley, Tom (1973). "The Texas Judiciary: Problems and Needs". The 63rd Texas Legislature Pre-session Conference: Judicial Reorganization, Revenue Sharing, Property Taxation and School Finance. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. p. 10. OCLC   621945.
  26. Hansen 1998, p. 69.
  27. 1 2 3 Bessette et al. 2011, p. 782.
  28. "Brenda Sapino Jeffreys. The Courthouse Shuffle. TEXAS LAWYER, Nov. 10, 2008".
  29. 1 2 Anderson 1997, p. 21.
  30. 1 2 Dautrich et al. 2009, p. 769.
  31. Jennings, Dianne (14 December 2009). "State Commission on Judicial Conduct has the job of judging Texas' judges". The Dallas Morning News .
  32. 1 2 Anderson 1997, p. 20.
  33. Anderson 1997, p. 22.
  34. Anderson 1997, p. 17.
  35. Anderson 1997, pp. 17-18.
  36. Anderson 1997, pp. 18-19.
  37. Schmidt et al. 2007, p. 866.