BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.S.B. 1233 |
By: Rodríguez |
Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties contend that, while it is possible for an associate judge appointed under certain provisions of the Family Code to commit an abuse of discretion that would potentially be subject to a writ of mandamus if committed by a judge of a district or county court, the courts of appeals are not authorized to issue writs of mandamus against such associate judges, among others. C.S.S.B. 1233 seeks to remedy this inconsistency.
|
||||||||
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
|
||||||||
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.
|
||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.S.B. 1233 amends the Government Code to authorize each court of appeals for a court of appeals district to issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a judge of a statutory county court or statutory probate county court in the court of appeals district and against an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge under certain Family Code provisions in the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge.
|
||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2017.
|
||||||||
COMPARISON OF SENATE ENGROSSED AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.S.B. 1233 may differ from the engrossed in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the engrossed and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||
|