PMWJ C.S.H.B. 3556 75(R)BILL ANALYSIS


JUDICIAL AFFAIRS
H.B. 3556
By: Hinojosa
C.S.H.B. 3556
By: Hartnett
4-16-97
Committee Report (Substituted)



BACKGROUND 

 In Hidalgo County, there is a problem of overcrowded dockets in the
District Courts. Criminal cases tend to dominate the majority of District
Court time.  As a result, civil suits oftentimes must wait years before
having an opportunity to be presented for trial.  By raising the
jurisdictional limit of the four county courts at law, more civil cases
will be heard in the county courts at law, thus relieving the district
courts of some of their burden. 
 The judges presiding over the four county courts-at-law are currently
paid at a rate far below that of the district court judges in the county
and other county court at law judges from around the state.  In order to
equalize the salaries of the judges, the pay rate of the county court at
law judges should be tied to the rate of pay for district court judges.   


PURPOSE

 C.S.H.B. 3556 would add civil jurisdiction to a Hidalgo County court at
law concurrent with a district court in which the matter in controversy
does not $500,000 and also provide that the judges not be paid less than
$1,000 less than the total annual salary of a district judge in the
county.  This bill will also increase the stenographer's fee for the
making of a record. 


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

 It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any
additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency or
institution. 


SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

 SECTION 1. Sections 25.1102(a), (c), and (f), Government Code, are
amended as follows: 
 Subsec. (a) provides that a county court at law in Hidalgo County has
concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which
the matter in controversy does not exceed $500,000, excluding interest,
penalties, and costs. 
 Subsec. (c) provides that a county court at law shall be paid an annual
salary that is not less than $1,000 less than the total annual salary,
including supplements received by a district judge in the county. 
 Subsec. (f) increases the stenographer's fee for a record or any part of
a record from $3 to $20. 

 SECTION 2.  Effective date.  Application of act.

 SECTION 3.  Emergency clause.




 COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

 Sec. 25.1102(f), in Section 1 of the substitute, which raises the
stenographer's fee for a record, was not in the original bill. 
 Section 2 in the original bill did not have an application of act clause.
 Section 3 is the same in both version.