Texas Senate Bill SB1717

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 4/18/11
• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Voted on by Senate: 4/26/11
• Refer: 3/23/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/18/11
• Report Pass: 4/18/11
• Voted on by House: 5/24/11
• Engrossed: 4/26/11
• Refer: 4/28/11
• Report Pass: 5/5/11

Caption

Relating to the operation and administration of the judicial branch of state government.

Impact

The bill proposes significant changes that affect statutory county courts and district courts in Texas, particularly regarding their concurrent jurisdiction. By enabling county courts to have jurisdiction over certain civil cases and appeals from eviction suits, it aims to streamline judicial processes and minimize the burden on district courts. Moreover, it seeks to enhance the legal framework governing jury composition and the handling of specific matters within these courts, ultimately leading to a more efficient judicial system. These changes may facilitate quicker resolutions to disputes in civil and family law contexts whilst ensuring that courts are well-equipped to handle cases that require special judicial attention.

Summary

SB1717 aims to enhance the operation and administration of the judicial branch of the state government. This bill contains provisions that address the structure and jurisdiction of county courts at law, making notable changes in how these courts operate in matters such as family law, civil cases, and eviction procedures. For example, it provides for concurrent jurisdiction with district courts in specific types of cases, broadening the scope of what county courts can adjudicate. Additionally, it amends how appeals are processed from judgments in eviction suits, requiring a supersedeas bond to stay such judgments pending appeal, which adds a new layer of procedural requirements for litigants in eviction cases.

Contention

One of the contentious points of SB1717 revolves around its provisions aimed at designating certain litigants as vexatious litigants. This high standard for filing litigation could be perceived as an infringement on individuals' rights to access the court system. Critics argue that while the intention is to prevent the abuse of court resources, it may also hinder legitimate claims from individuals who may have legitimate grievances but struggle to meet the new requirements. Discussions surrounding these provisions indicate potential debates about access to justice versus the need to maintain systemic efficiency in the court system.