MADD Releases New Report on Public Perception of Cannabis-Impaired Driving

This September, MADD published a new report on public perception of cannabis-impaired driving. To create the report, MADD surveyed more than 1,000 people from across the U.S. on their understanding of how cannabis impacts driving. MADD found that people generally view cannabis-impaired driving as less concerning than alcohol-impaired driving, but 8 in 10 people want more information on how cannabis affects driving. The report also found that people in Colorado, where recreational and medical marijuana use has been allowed under state law for many years, were more likely to be well-informed on the risks of driving after consuming cannabis. You can read the full report here.

Protective Order Registry

This is a reminder of requirements that went into effect under SB 325 concerning submitting applications for Emergency Protective Orders and copies of the EPOs into the Protective Order Registry that OCA was required to establish by June 1, 2020.

Important Note: The Supreme Court has extended the date for courts to begin reporting to October 15 due to the pandemic. Here is the order: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1449663/order-209106.pdf

The new law requires the clerk of the court to enter any application for an Emergency Protective Order and any EPO that is issued or modified into the Protective Order Registry as soon as possible but not later than 24 hours after the filing of the application or issuance of the EPO.

The clerk may delay the entry only to the extent that they lack the specific information required to be entered.

If an EPO is vacated or expires, the clerk must update the status of the Order in the Registry.

Here is a link for the clerk to log in to enter the application and EPO, as well as training on how to do this: https://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/protective-order-registry/authorized-user-information-instructions/

Here is the link to TOPICs (Texas Online Public Information – Courts), the OCA Protective Order Registry website as the public views it: https://topics.txcourts.gov/

And this the link to the Protective Order Registry home page: https://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/protective-order-registry/

These requirements are set forth in Sections 72.151 – 72.158, Government Code.

Please let us know if you have any questions. You may also wish to contact OCA if you have any technical questions about how to enter the application or EPO.

Jurisdictional Limit Increase Now in Effect

As we move into fall, many courts (and TJCTC) have been consumed with the COVID-19 pandemic and the ever-changing landscape that justice courts currently face. However, we wanted to remind you that in addition, the jurisdictional limit increase to $20,000 went into effect on September 1, 2020. Below are some answers to common questions that we have received over the last few weeks regarding the jurisdictional limit increase.

Can a plaintiff amend their petition that was filed prior to September 1 to increase their claim to more than $10,000 on or after September 1?

While a plaintiff generally has a right to amend their petition, and the court now has jurisdiction over a claim for damages that does not exceed $20,000, there are factors that must be considered when determining what happens when a plaintiff who filed a case before Sept. 1 now wants to amend a petition to seek more than $10,000 in damages.

The only time this could create a jurisdictional issue is if the damages are liquidated (definite and clearly ascertainable by reference to a written document), and the plaintiff had improperly filed a suit over which the court did not have jurisdiction prior to September 1. In that case, since the court did not have jurisdiction over the case when it was filed, technically the court would have to dismiss the case, but because the court does have jurisdiction now the plaintiff could re-file for the higher amount.

If, instead, the damages in the case are unliquidated (that is, they are not definite and clearly ascertainable by reference to a written document), then there should not be any issue with the plaintiff now seeking the higher amount. This is because there is no prohibition on reducing an unliquidated claim to “manufacture jurisdiction” in justice court. Of course, they will still have to prove their damages at trial.

Even in a case seeking liquidated damages, if the amendment is due to an increase in damages under the “mere passage of time” rule, the plaintiff may also amend to an amount that is more than the jurisdictional limit. See page 8 of the Civil Deskbook.

We do not believe that just because the plaintiff amends the petition to allege a higher amount the court must conduct a special inquiry over whether it had jurisdiction before September 1. However, if it comes to the court’s attention that it clearly did not have jurisdiction before Sept. 1, then the court would have to dismiss subject to the plaintiff’s right to refile the case now that the court’s jurisdiction has increased.

For more information on liquidated v. unliquidated damages, which types of damages count against the jurisdictional limit, and how to determine if a case is within justice court jurisdiction please see pages 8 – 10 of the Civil Deskbook.

Is the jurisdictional limit for a Repair and Remedy Case still $10,000?

Yes. The Legislature did not amend Property Code 92.0563(e), which says: “A justice court may not award a judgment under this section . . . that exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs of court.” However, the Supreme Court did change Rule 509.2(a)(8) to say $20,000.

We think this was an oversight on the Court’s part because the Legislature had increased the jurisdictional amount in all other civil justice court cases, and believe that the Court will likely amend the rule to match Property Code 92.0563(e) at some point in the near future.

Also, it seems likely that the Legislature will address this in the 2021 session, making the jurisdictional cap in these cases $20,000 as well. Stay tuned!

Check out TJCTC’s Online Learning Resources for webinars, recordings for credit, and other resources related to the jurisdictional increase and civil cases!

The topics include: The $20,000 Question: Jurisdictional Increase in Justice Court; Tricky Issues: Civil Cases; CPR for Civil Knowledge: Understanding the CPRC; Fundamentals of Contracts; Torts-Crash Into Me; How Much Should the Judgment Be? Calculating Damages in Civil Cases, and more!

TJCTC’s DWI Bond Condition Program

TJCTC’s DWI Bond Condition Program is part of a statewide effort to reduce the incidence of DWI offenses in Texas counties by adopting a comprehensive plan for setting, monitoring, and enforcing bond conditions in DWI cases. The program is free for counties and promotes the use of bond conditions (such as ignition interlock devices) that reduce the incidence of DWI recidivism, increases consistency in setting bond conditions by a magistrate and a trial court, and ensures that bond conditions required by law are properly set, monitored, and enforced.

The program web page includes additional details, including a video about the program and a map that shows all of the counties that are currently expressing interest or participating in the Program. The web page also provides information on how to contacts us if you would like more information or are interested in signing up.

Visit the program web page today!