Did a Texas district court need a filed lawsuit before it could exercise supervisory control over a county commissioners court?

Texas AG Opinion JM-708: District-Court Review of Commissioners Courts

Plain-English summary

A district attorney asked whether Texas Constitution article V, section 8 allowed a district court to exercise "general supervisory control" over a county commissioners court without a lawsuit being filed.

The Attorney General concluded that it did not. The constitutional phrase described a form of judicial jurisdiction, not an administrative power for a district judge to monitor or direct a commissioners court outside a case.

Texas cases had recognized two paths for review. A statute could provide an appeal or other review procedure for a particular commissioners-court order. When no statute supplied a procedure, a party could bring an independent equitable action in district court alleging that the commissioners court acted without legal authority or abused its discretion.

Either way, the district court's jurisdiction had to be properly invoked. The filing of a lawsuit was therefore necessary before the court could exercise the supervisory authority described in article V, section 8.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a district judge supervise a commissioners court informally?

No. The opinion treated supervisory control as judicial power that existed within a properly filed case, not as informal oversight outside litigation.

Did article V, section 8 itself provide a complete appeal procedure?

No. The opinion noted that the Legislature had created procedures for some subjects but had not enacted one general procedure for every exercise of supervisory control.

What if no statute authorized an appeal?

The cited cases allowed an independent equitable action in district court to review a commissioners-court order in appropriate circumstances.

Could every commissioners-court decision be reconsidered by a district court?

No. The authorities summarized in the opinion limited review to situations involving action without legal authority or abuse of discretion, with jurisdiction invoked through an authorized review process or equitable suit.

What was the direct answer to the district attorney's question?

A lawsuit had to be brought in district court seeking review before the court could exercise general supervisory control over the commissioners court's actions.

Background and constitutional framework

Article V, section 8 gave district courts appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over county commissioners courts, subject to exceptions and regulations prescribed by law.

In Scott v. Graham, the Texas Supreme Court recognized an equitable proceeding in district court as a proper way to review a commissioners-court order where no general statutory review procedure existed. County of Hays v. Alexander and Harris County v. Bassett reflected the same case-based approach.

The opinion also quoted a constitutional treatise explaining that "general supervisory control" did not amount to continuous control. The treatise relied on Garcia v. State and Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Liberty-Danville Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 1 for the limits on review and the need for an independent action when no statute provided one.

Citations and references

Constitutional authority:

• Texas Constitution article V, section 8 (district-court jurisdiction and supervisory control)

Cases:

• Scott v. Graham, 292 S.W.2d 324, 328 (Tex. 1956)
• County of Hays v. Alexander, 640 S.W.2d 73, 78 (Tex. App.-Austin 1982, no writ)
• Harris County v. Bassett, 139 S.W.2d 180, 182 (Tex. Civ. App.-Galveston 1940, writ ref'd)
• Garcia v. State, 290 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
• Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Liberty-Danville Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 1, 506 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1974, no writ)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0708
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0708.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS

May 25, 1987

Honorable Rex N. Leach
District Attorney
200 West State Street
Groesbeck, Texas 76642

Opinion No. JM-708

Re: Supervisory control of a district court over a county commissioners court under article V, section 8, of the Texas Constitution

Dear Mr. Leach:

You ask about the interpretation of article V, section 8, of the Texas Constitution, which provides:

District Court jurisdiction consists of exclusive, appellate, and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body. District Court judges shall have the power to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction.

The District Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over the County Commissioners Court, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law. (Emphasis added).

Specifically, you ask whether a lawsuit must be filed in order to invoke a district court's "general supervisory control" over a commissioners court.

Cases interpreting article V, section 8, of the Texas Constitution make clear that a district court may exercise "general supervisory control" over a commissioners court only when the district court's jurisdiction is properly invoked by the filing of a lawsuit. In Scott v. Graham, 292 S.W.2d 324, 328 (Tex. 1956), for example, the Texas Supreme Court discussed the meaning of article V, section 8. The court pointed out that although the legislature had established procedures for appealing orders of commissioners courts relating to certain matters, the legislature had not established a procedure for invoking the general supervisory control of district courts over actions of commissioners court. The Texas Supreme Court stated, however, that it was well settled that an equitable proceeding brought in district court for the purpose of reviewing an order of a commissioners court was within the power granted by article V, section 8. Id. See also County of Hays v. Alexander, 640 S.W.2d 73, 78 (Tex. App.-Austin 1982, no writ); Harris County v. Bassett, 139 S.W.2d 180, 182 (Tex. Civ. App.-Galveston 1940, writ ref'd).

A treatise on the Texas Constitution contains the following discussion of article V, section 8:

Section 8 gives the district court 'appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control' over the commissioners court. . . . [T]he 'control' phrase adds nothing. Indeed, in this provision the phrase 'general supervisory control' is demonstrably inaccurate because the district court does not have any kind of general control over commissioners courts; the courts have held that the district court may exercise its jurisdiction over commissioners courts only if a commissioners court has acted without legal authority or abused its discretion, and even then it may not review actions of the commissioners court unless a statute provides for such review or unless an independent equitable action is brought in the district court. (See Garcia v. State, 290 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.).) This principle was reaffirmed recently in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Liberty-Danville Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 1 (506 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1974, no writ)).

1 G. Braden, The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis 415-16 (1977). We think that this treatise correctly interpreted the relevant case law and that a district court's "general supervisory control" over a commissioners court exists only when the district court's jurisdiction is properly invoked by the filing of a lawsuit.

SUMMARY

A district court may exercise "general supervisory control" over the actions of a commissioners court only when a lawsuit is brought in district court seeking review of the commissioners court's actions.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General