Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): expressly conferred jurisdiction in district courts for cases with a minimum of $500.00 in controversy. Tex. Const, art. V, § 8 (1876); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art.l906(6) (1925), repealed by Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S. ch 480, § 26(1), 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 1720, 2048. When article 1906 was codified it no longer included the $500.00 minimum amount and instead provides that district courts have jurisdiction as provided by Article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.007 (West 2004). At the time of the codification, Article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution provided that a district court’s minimum juris 7947, at *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Mar. 1, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.), Arteaga v. Jackson, 994 S.W.2d 342, 342 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. denied)(<HOLDING>), Moore v. TDCJ-CID, No. 13-04-425-CV, 2005 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding after the 1985 constitutional and statutory amendments district courts jurisdiction extends to cases involving more than 20000 (B) holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation (C) holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation of goods (D) holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts (E) holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
Output (English): holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation