II. The Conundrum in Harris County

“Exclusive jurisdiction is the power a court exercises over an action or person to

the exclusion of all other courts.”118 Exclusive jurisdiction can only be granted to one

tribunal.119 If jurisdiction is lodged in more than one type of court, then concurrent

jurisdiction exists.120 Exclusive jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction are mutually

exclusive concepts.121 Thus, if exclusive jurisdiction of a particular subject-matter is

vested in one type of court, no other type of court may exercise that jurisdiction. There

is no such thing as concurrent exclusive jurisdiction – such a term would be an

oxymoron.

Subsection (a) is the key part of Section 26.045. This subsection vests

constitutional county courts with exclusive original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors

except for two exceptional categories. The first exceptional category consists of those

misdemeanors involving official misconduct. The second category involves

118 Taub v. Aquila Southwest Pipeline. Inc., 93 S.W.3d 451, 456 n.8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 564 (6th ed. 1990)). 119 67 J. Bruce Bennett, Primary Jurisdiction in Texas; Has the Texas Supreme Court Clarified or Confused It?, 5 Tex. Tech J. Tex. Admin. Law 177, 178 (2004). 120 See Black’s Law Dictionary 855 (7th ed. 1999) (“concurrent jurisdiction” is “jurisdiction exercised by more than one court over the same subject matter and within the same territory”); See also Richardson v. First Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 419 S.W.2d 836, 837-38 (Tex. 1967) (“The jurisdiction given by this language is not concurrent with the jurisdiction of the other courts, but is an exclusive jurisdiction within its field.”); Tovias v. Wildwood Properties P’ship, 67 S.W.3d 527, 529 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“Neither court had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction; each had concurrent subject matter jurisdiction.”). 121 See Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876) (“if exclusive jurisdiction [in the federal courts] be neither express nor implied, the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction”); Ex parte Wilbarger, 55 S.W. 968, 970 (Tex. Crim. App. 1900) (“The justice court is not vested with exclusive jurisdiction, and therefore has no guarantee that its jurisdiction may not be invaded by investing concurrent jurisdiction in other courts.”); Mercer v. Phillips Natural Gas Co., 746 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tex. App.— Austin 1988, writ denied) (“The jurisdiction granted by H.B. 2413 was either concurrent or it was exclusive.”) (emphasis added).