In Re Canales
52 S.W.3d 698, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 4, 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 407 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas Government Code § 74.053, an objection to an assigned visiting judge is timely only if filed before the judge presides over the first hearing or trial in the case. The issuance of a new assignment order for the same judge in the same case does not create a new opportunity to object.
Facts:
- Cynthia Barrera sued Judge Terry A. Canales and Jim Wells County.
- Because Judge Canales was the local judge for the court in which the suit was filed, he requested that a visiting judge be assigned to the matter.
- On May 24, 1999, visiting Judge Woody Densen was assigned to preside over the court for a three-day period.
- On May 25, 1999, Judge Densen heard and granted a motion for a protective order in the case.
- Two days later, on May 27, 1999, Judge Densen conducted a telephone hearing and denied another of Barrera's motions.
- On July 9, 1999, the presiding administrative judge issued a second order, specifically assigning Judge Densen to preside over Barrera's case.
- On August 13, 1999, after Judge Densen had already conducted two prior hearings, Barrera filed her first objection to Judge Densen's assignment.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Barrera sued Judge Terry A. Canales and Jim Wells County in a state trial court (79th Judicial District Court).
- After Barrera filed an objection to visiting Judge Densen, he overruled it as untimely.
- Judge Densen then granted summary judgment in favor of Canales and dismissed the case against the County.
- Barrera filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the state's intermediate appellate court, asking it to order Judge Densen to disqualify himself.
- The court of appeals conditionally granted the writ, holding that Barrera's objection was timely because it was filed before any hearings under the second assignment order.
- Canales and the County (the relators) then sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Texas to compel the court of appeals to vacate its judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a party's objection to a visiting judge under Texas Government Code § 74.053 timely when it is filed after the judge has already presided over pretrial hearings in the case, but before the judge takes any action under a new, subsequent assignment order?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Enoch
No. An objection to a visiting judge is untimely if filed after the judge has presided over any hearing in the case, regardless of the terms of any particular assignment order. The plain language of section 74.053(c) requires that an objection be filed 'before the first hearing or trial, including pretrial hearings, over which the assigned judge is to preside.' This language refers to the very first hearing the judge handles in the case, not the first hearing under a new or subsequent assignment order. The court reasoned that the statute's legislative history and purpose—to promote efficient court administration and prevent delay—support this interpretation. Allowing a party to object after a judge has already made rulings would enable litigants to 'test out' a judge and would disrupt the judicial process, which is contrary to the statute's intent.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, bright-line rule for the timeliness of objections to visiting judges in Texas, preventing a 'wait-and-see' approach by litigants. By delinking the right to object from the specific terms of administrative assignment orders, the court foreclosed a potential loophole that could have led to strategic delay and judge-shopping. The ruling solidifies the principle that the right to object is waived the moment an assigned judge takes substantive action in a case. This interpretation prioritizes judicial efficiency and predictability over a party's ability to object at a later stage, even when a judge is technically reassigned.
