V. Dailing’s statutory-construction argument

because such a statute would deprive the first court of its constitutionally-bestowed

exclusive jurisdiction.

County-government expert on county government David Brooks has drummed

home the foregoing point. Mr. Brooks has said the "legislature cannot deprive a district

court or other constitutional court of its constitutional jurisdiction by the creation of a

statutory court.”138 He noted “[t]here is no prohibition in the Constitution preventing

the Legislature from establishing a statutory court which shares the non-exclusive

jurisdiction of a constitutional court.”139 Mr. Brooks’ use of the term “non-exclusive

jurisdiction” is significant. By doing so, he signifies the converse is also true. In other

words, the Constitution prevents the Legislature from sharing the exclusive jurisdiction

of a constitutional court. As Mr. Brooks said, “[t]he exclusive jurisdiction of the district

court over certain matters preclude[s] the legislature from creating statutory courts with

concurrent jurisdiction.”140

Numerous appellate opinions say the legislature cannot deprive a court of its

constitutionally-created jurisdiction. The leading case in this area is Reasonover v.

Reasonover. 141 The case involved a challenge to a legislative act giving exclusive

jurisdiction of divorce cases to the Criminal District Court of Willacy County.142 The

138 36 David Brooks, Texas Practice Series, County and Special District Law at 329 (2nd ed. Updated August 2015). 139 Id. (emphasis added). 140 Id. at 334. 141 Reasonover v. Reasonover, 58 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. 1933). 142 Id. at 818.