A Brief Deconstruction of SB 1204
More than once, I heard the 78th Legislature's now-infamous House Bill 4 described as "the Full Employment Act for appellate lawyers." Considering how inaccurate that forecast was, I am approaching Senate Bill 1204, the latest proposed overhaul to the civil justice system (originally mentioned here), with some trepidation.
SB 1204 focuses largely on reforming our state's judicial structure and practice at the trial-court level, primarily by converting Texas's statutory county courts into more than 40 new district courts. This change would take effect on January 1, 2011, with most of these offices standing for election in 2010. Another major change would be the creation of a "complex case" judicial panel that would operate much like the multidistrict litigation panels created in 2003.
From an appellate lawyer's perspective, other provisions are potentially significant. For example, the bill would allow mandamus to the supreme court to challenge a complex case panel's determination that a matter is not in fact "complex." The bill would also authorize permissive appeals from certain interlocutory orders in complex and multidistrict cases.
Of broader interest, the bill would significantly alter Texas Government Code § 22.001, the statute defining the supreme court's jurisdiction, by deleting all references to specific types of cases (i.e., "dissent" or "conflict" jurisdiction) and recognizing what is now subpart (6) (jurisprudential importance) as defining the supreme court's jurisdictional reach. This amendment would settle the debate about whether the supreme court must accept certain types of cases by providing true discretionary jurisdiction subject to one exception: the supreme court "shall grant a petition for review in a case in which a court of appeals has declared void a statute of the state."
Another noteworthy feature of SB 1204 is that it would expressly grant "the supreme court [power to] act on a petition for review when the court deems it expedient." This provision's purpose is not apparent. Except for motions for rehearing of causes, the supreme court already works on its own timetable.
We will be hearing and reading a lot about SB 1204 over the next couple of months. Some of the folks who participated in drafting this bill think it stands a fairly good chance of passage. From what I understand, an initial hearing on the bill has been set for March19, 2006. No doubt, this is the beginning of an interesting debate.
