TexasPre-TrialProcedure

1、Chapter 3 - The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Texas Trial CourtDefinitions:Origi nal Jurisdicti onYou can start the case in that Ct.Exclusive Jurisdicti on - Only that Ct. can han dle that kind of caseI. An Overview of the Texas Trial CourtsA. Justice Courts - 27.0311. Amount in Controversya) O

2、riginal Lower Limit0b) Upper Limit - $5,000c) Exclusive Less than $2002. Justice Ct.s share concurrent original jurisdiction with county Ct.s in civil cases where amount in controversy is b/w $200 and $5,000.3. Original jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer cases. (jurisdiction exists regard

3、less of value of land) eviction is the most common example (does not raise a title issue what you are seeking is possession)a) Special Subject Matter Jurisdiction4. May issue writs of attachment, garnishment, and sequestration, but no authority to issue writs ofmandamus or injunctions (27.032)5. Exp

4、ressly denied suits on behalf of the state to recover penalties, forfeitures, and escheats, suits fordivorce, suits to recover damages for slander or defamation of character, suits for trial of title of land and suits for the enforcement of liens on land -27.031(b)B. Constitutional County Ct.s -26.0

5、421. The Texas Constitution provides that“The County Ct. jurisdiction as provided by law.Const. Art. 5,16). 2. The amount in controversy is $200.01 through $5000 (concurrent with Justice Ct.s).3. Unless a cause is specifically assigned to another Ct. b/c of its subject matter, a constitutional Ct. h

6、as concurrent jurisdiction with justice Ct.s in civil cases and district Ct.s for $200 - $5,0004. Has civil appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in justice Ct.s or small claims Ct. when the judgment rendered is $20 (Review is by a trial de novo)a) Special SMJ probate, juvenile, and appeals if m

7、ore than $205. May issue writs of injunction, mandamus, cert., and all other writs6. Many of these Ct.s are granted additional jurisdiction by statutory provisions which apply only to those Ct.s7. Constitutional Ct.s have no jurisdiction in:a) A suit to recover damages for slander or defamationb) Su

8、it for enforcing a lien on landc) Suit in behalf of the state for escheatd) Suit for Divorcee) Suit for forfeiture of a corporate charterf) Suit for trial for property values at $500 or more and levied on under a writ of execution, sequestration, or attachmentg) An eminent domain caseh) Suit to reco

9、ver landC. District Courts -24.0071. The Primary Texas Trial Ct.s Constitutional Ct.s of General Jurisdiction2. Article 5,8 District Ct.s of juris. over all except those reserved exclusively to other statesa) Jurisdiction consist of exclusive, appellate, and original juris. Except where another Ct.

10、has that3. Amount in Controversy is more than $500a) District Ct.s have concurrent amount is controversy juris. With justice Ct.s, constitutional county Ct.s, and statutory Ct.s in cases in which the a.i.c. exceeds $500, up to the Ct. juris. Limitsb) Govt code doesn t specify the lower limit (some C

11、t.s say $200, but there are arguments for both ways).c) When no a.i.c. go here4. Residual Jurisdiction - The District Ct. s juris. is ascertainable by the process of eliminationa) 24.007 - Exclusive jurisdicti on over what is not give n to an ybody elseb) origi nal jurisdicti on as long as there is

12、exclusive jurisdicti on to some one elseD. Legislative Ct.s - 25.003 (default provision) (statutory or county at law)1. Legislative Ct.s Exercising District Jurisdictiona) The leg. may not restrict the juris. of a district ct., but the leg. can change a statutory ct. intoa con stituti onal district

13、ct. by in creas ing its jurisdicti on to con stituti onal proport ions2. Legislative County Ct.sa) The basis jurisdictional provision is contained in the Gov t Code Section 25.000b) A statutory cou nty Ct. has jurisdicti on over all causes and proceedi ngs, civil and cri min al,original and appellat

14、e, prescribed by law for county Ct.sc) A statutory Ct. does not have jurisdicti on over Roads, bridges, highwaysGen eral adm ini strati on of cou nty bus in ess w/in the juris. of the commissi on ers ofeach cou nty This differs from cou nty to cou nty and the special provisi ons trump 25.0003d) A st

15、atutory ct. exercising civil juris. concurrent w/ the constitutional juris. of the county ct.has concurrent juris. w/ the district ct. in: Civil cases where a.i.c. is b/w $500 and $100,000 Appeals of fi nal rulings and decisions of the Tx. Worker s Comp* Has, con curre nt w/ the con st. cou nty ct.

16、in probate matters unl ess the leg. has created a statutory probate Ct.* In a cou nty that has a statutory probate ct., a statutory probate ct. is the only cou nty ct. created by statute w/ probate juris.e) Amou nt in Con troversyLower Limit -200.01* Upper Limit - 5,000 (excludes interest and attorn

17、ey s fees)E. Shared Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction Varying From County to County: Effects on Filing and Transfer1. Adjudicative Resp on sibility & Tran sfer B/w District Ct.s and Leg. Cts. Exercis ing Con curre nt Juris. w/ District Ct.s (Tex. R. Civ. P. 330(e).a) The district ct. judges may excha ng

18、e ben ches or districts and may tra nsfer proceedi ngsb) Ct. Admi nistrative Act* State is divided into 9 administrative judicial regions and is governed by local rulesc) Rules of Judicial Admini strati on* Rule 3 - Creates a “ council of presiding judges” to oversee dockets and caseto promote uni f

19、ormity* Rule 4 - Creates a “ council of judgestdrctoeilmads* Rile 6 -Establishes the standards for the disposition of various categories of cases(i.e. civil jury cases should be fin alized w/in 18 mon ths)2. Adjudicative Resp on sibility and Tran sfer in Cases In volvi ng Eminent doma in, Probate, a

20、nd Divorcea) District cts. have juris. concurrent w/ the county cts at law in eminent domain casesb) Con stituti onal cou nty cts do not have jurisdicti onc) Probate Jurisdiction can be heard in a 1) con st. cou nty Ct., 2) statutory probate ct., or 3) district Ct. (p. 125) (depe nds on particular c

21、ou nty)* county ct. at law must transfer case if district ct. has a case specific to itd) All district cts. and some statutory Ct.s have smj to litigate divorce cases and related matterse) 21.001 of property ct. -Eminent Domain Cases -county ct. at law has concurrent jurisdiction with the district C

22、t.F. Other Ct.s1. There are provision creating municipal cts., some of which are cts of record2. “ Small claims ” juris. allows justice cts. to use simplified procedures when a.i.c. is less than $5,003. Family District Ct.sII.Appellate Cases Concerning Trial Ct. JurisdictionA. Competing Jurisdiction

23、al Grants1. Orange Laundry Co. v. Stark (1944)a) Facts: Stark in stituted this suit aga inst Orange for forcible deta iner and damages in a JusticeCt. It was appealed from the justice Ct. to county Ct. Appellants written lease was not ren ewed whe n it expired, but they stayed on the property any wa

24、y, n ever pay ing rent. Stark only wan ted restituti on of the premises, damages, and cost of suit.b) Rule of Law Tn a forcible deta iner suit the merits of the title to land shall not be in quired in to.If a sale made by the bank to appellee is to be attacked as being in valid, it must be done in a

25、 suit filed in the district Ct. for that purpose and such is not permissible is a suit for forcible deta in er. Not necessarily an issue of title here Tn a f.e.d. action, title is not an issue If they wan ted to attack title go to district Ct.2. Rodriguez v. Sullivan (1972)a) Facts: The District Ct.

26、 denied a temporary injunction against the Sheriff to prevent him fromexecuting a writ of possession in a Forcible Entry and Detainer Caseb) Rule of Law -Forcible entry suit and detainer is an action for possession and the question ofright of possession is the only issue for a Justice Ct. Justice Ct

27、.s have no jurisdiction of suits of title, and hence have no jurisdicti on to try a case in forcible deta in er, which n ecessarily in volves trial of title to land, or to ren der judgme nt there in.* This case n ecessarily in volved titles to property, therefore, justice Ct. can(Test -Does it neces

28、sarily involve title to property?)III. Amount in ControversyA. Defin iti ons1) A.C. -Unless otherwise provided by statute, exemplary damages, attorne y s fees, penalties, and likerecoveries are cou nted as part of the a.i.c.a) By statute, statutory cou nty Ct.s exercis ing civil jurisdicti on must n

29、ot in clude statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney s fees and costs ”2) Interest eo nominee Tncludes conventional interest provided by agreement as well as certain kindsfixed by statute. This is the kind of interest that is given under a written kx, get interest based on statute t

30、hat covers this. This is excluded from a.i.c.3) Interest as damages - Exists when the dollar value of the loss is fixed by the conditions as of the timeof the injury giv ing rise to the cause of acti on4) Pre-Judgment Interest Wron gful Death, Pers onal Injury, and property damage acti ons filed orr

31、etried after September 1, 1987 must in clude statutory prejudgme nt in teresta) Common Law Prejudgme nt In terest -is part of damagesB Cases:1) Peek v. Equipment Service (1989)a) Facts: P seek ing damages un der a wron gful death and survival acti on suit in district Ct. P.filed a petition that fail

32、ed to specify amount of damages:b) Rule of Law Unless it is clear from the pleadings that the ct. lacks jurisdiction of the a.i.c., itshould retain the case and give a chance for amendment. The failure for the P. to state a.i.c. will not deprive jurisdiction b/c it is a special exception.* Claims no

33、t for a mon etary amou nt can be con verted to an amou nt* Even if pldg is never clarified, ct. will maintain it by special exception2) Sears v. Big Be nd Motor Inn (1991)a) Facts: Sears appealed to a Ct. at Law stating that the a.i.c. exceeded the jurisdiction of the trialCt. b/c Big Bend s request

34、ed attorney s fees and treble damages would take Big Bend beythe Ct. s max. jurisdiction.b) Rule of Law B/c treble damages are pun itive/pe nalty in n ature, they are excluded from thea.i.c.3) Smith v. Clary Corp . (1996) -Tex. Gov t Code 24.009 (allows you to aggregate)a) Facts: Smith contracted wi

35、th Clary and Clary sued Smith in County Ct. The Smithscou nterclaimed allegi ng damages in excess. Clary appealed the judgme nt alleg ing that the aggregate amou nt of the cou nterclaims exceeded the jurisdicti on al limit.b) Rule of Law - “ The Ct.s have not and should not apply aggregation to dive

36、st a Ct. ofjurisdiction on counterclaims asserted by multiple D.s, whose joinder normally is not volu ntary, and who have not chose n the forum.”* 24.009 -P/ s voluntarily come together, therefore it is not intended to defeat juris. Worried about forum shopp ing b/c D. shouldn t pick $ D. can cou nt

37、erclaim for less tha n the jurisdicti onal amt.4) An del v. Eastman Kodak Co (1966)a) Facts: Appellants sued for their children to recover damages for a car accident. Suit was w/inamou nt for the District Ct., but appellee cou nterclaimed and appella nt took a non suit.b) Rule of Law -“ Once the Ct.

38、 has obtained jurisdiction over the controversy b/w the parties bythe filing of a counter- claim, dismissal of P. s cases does not deprive the Ct. of jurisdiction ofthe cou nterclaim. ” Cou nterclaim was too small, but ct. will continue to hear the claim -they are tryi ng not to oust cases once the

39、ct. has bee n gra nted jurisdicti on5) Barnes v. U.S. Fidelity (1955)a) Facts: Fidelity fur ni shed a bond to Bar nesormer employee and Barnes was required toindemnify it for the bond amount plus 6% interest. (This was not conventional interest)b) Rule of Law -The 6% in not really interest, it is re

40、covery for damages under an indemnityagreeme nt. B/c of that, it is part of the a.i.c.* Look at top of page 142 (this is prejudgme nt in terest)6) Fly nt v. Garcia (1979)a) Facts: Flynt sued Garcia for less tha n $5,000, but the n alleged additi onal deli nque nt amou ntsaccrued un der the terms of

41、the settleme nt agreeme nt.b) Rule of Law - “ Once a Ct. s jurisdiction has been properly acquired, no subsequent factdeveloped over the passage of time serves to defeat that jurisdicti on.7) Continental Coffee Products v. Cazarez (1996)a) Rule of Law Tf a P. s origpailtion is properly brought in a

42、particular Ct., but an ame ndme nt in creases that a.i.c. above the ct. s jurisdicti onal limits, the Ct. will con ti nue t(have jurisdiction if the additional damages accrued b/c of the passage of time.IV. Declaratory JudgmentsA. Code -C.P.R.C.3.003 -Power of Ct.s to Render Judgment; Form and Effec

43、tB Cases:1. Farmers Texas County Mutual Ins. v. Griffina) Facts:* Farmers sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Royal III in a suit brought by Griffin.* Royal III drove a car in which gun shots were fired and hit and injured Griffin. Royalinvoked Farmer s duty to defend him

44、b) P.H. -The trial ct. granted the Farmers summary judgment and the Ct. of appeals reversedc) Issue:* Is the duty to indemnify Griffi n properly justiciable by declaratory judgme nt before the ren diti on of a judgme nt?d) Held: 1) Farmers had no duty to defe nd Royal, 2) Farmers duty to indemn ify

45、Royalcon stituted a justiciable con troversye) Reasoning* For the most part, you can t indemnify before a judgment has been reached2. Tex. Ass n of Business v. Air Control Bda) Facts: TAB brought a declaratory judgme nt acti on, on behalf of its members, seek ing aruling that statutes authorizing ad

46、ministrative agencies to assess fines for violations of en viro nment laws violate the Tex. Con st.b) Reasoning:* Hunt Test An associati on may sue if its members would otherwise have sta nding to sue in their own right, if the interests the associations seeks to protect are germane to its purposeV.

47、 Residual Limitations PeriodA. C.P.R.C. 16.064 The period b/w the date of fili ng an action in a trial ct. and the date of a seco nd fili ng of the same action in a different ct. suspends the running of the applicable s.o.l. for the period if 1) b/c of lack of juris. And 2) Not later than the 60 day

48、 after the date the dismissal b/c s finalDoesn t apply if there was an intentional disregard for juris.B Cases1. Vale v. Ryan (1991) -Residual Limitations Period-C.P.R.C.1&064a) Facts: Vale sued Ryan. While the federal cause was still in the federal appellate system, Valebega n to seek relief in sta

49、te ct.b) Issues: 1) Does a fed. ct. s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state dtaistitutea dismissal for lack of juris. Un der the Tex.“ sav ing statute ” and 2) Was the ditrial ct final for purposes of the same statute on the date of the federal district Ct. orderc) Held: Once the P. ha

50、s asserted the applicability of a tolling provision, the moving D. bears the burden of showing its applicability as a matter of law When state and federal claims arise from a com mon n ucleus of operative facts, a federal Ct. may hear and determine the state claims as well as the federal ones by exe

51、rcising its pendent jurisdicti on*Does n ot always have to be for a tech ni cal lack of jurisdictio n it can be discreti onary58Chapter 4 - Jurisdictions of Persons and PropertyVI. Jurisdiction of Persons and Property: - Chapter 4A. Definitions:1. In rem -A ct s power to adjudicate the rights to a g

52、iven piece of property including the power to seizeand hold it2. In personam A ct s power to bring a person into it s adjudicative process; juris. Over a personpers onal rights over merely a property in terest3. General jurisdiction Non reside nt s con tacts are contin uous and systematic. The activ

53、ity must besubstantial and the right type. This is the state s exercise of personal jurisdictionout of o r related to the D. s con tacts with the forum.”* Allows a state to bring in D. that does not arise from D. dUb8tiohsnw/jn a Stateallows for this4. Specific jurisdiction -Requires the litigati on

54、 to“ arise out of or relate toon tacts D. s mi nimuthe forum state - D. must purposely avail himselfB Cases:1. Ashi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Ct. (1987) -Plurality Opiniona) Facts: Zurcher was injured on his motorcycle. He sued Cheng Shin in California Superior Ct.Cheng Shim sought indemn ifica

55、ti on from Asahi Metal In dustry Co, the man ufacturer.b) Issue. Ts the mere awareness of a foreign D. that components it manufactured and soldoutside the U.S. would reach the forum State in the steam of commerce enough to constitute“ mi ni mum con tacts ” b/w the D. and the forum state and the exer

56、cise of this jurisdicti on does not offend traditi onal no ti ons of fair play and substa ntial justice?c) Reasoning: (S. Ct. is trying to bri ng some order to these cases -producti on is always cha nging) Minimum Contacts Issue* World-Wide Volkswagen rejected the assertion that a consumer s unilate

57、ral act ofbringing the D. s product into the forum state was a sufficient constitutional basis forpers onal jurisdicti on over the D.* Must look to the foreseeable un ilateral acti ons of the con sumer, but the Due ProcessClause requires more than that the D. was aware of its product s entry into tlState through the steam of commerce* The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, w/o more, is not an act of theD. -must find that the D. purposely availed himself* The Ct. is looking for more than distribution like: advertising, a marketing program, or a sales age nt* The justi