Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 97, 292 S.W.2d 324, 328 (1956). The enabling legislation empowering the district court merely repeats the language of Article V, Section 8. Tex.Gov’t Code ANN. § 24.020 (Vernon 2004) (“The district court has appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over the commissioners court, with the exceptions and regulations prescribed by law.”); Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479. However, the scope of the district court’s jurisdiction has been defined by case law. Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479. A party can invoke the district court’s constitutional supervisory control over a commissioners court judgment only when the commissioners court acts beyond its jurisdiction or clearly abuses the discre ct No. 18 of Limestone County, 172 S.W.2d 707, 712 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1948, writ refd) (<HOLDING>); Harris County v. Bassett, 139 S.W.2d 180, 182 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court must consider the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third partys means of infringement (B) recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts (C) holding that the supervisory control of the district court may be exercised through its equitable jurisdiction (D) holding that the district court should have quashed an indictment without requiring the target to show prejudice because the district attorney improperly exercised control over the selection and excusal of grand jurors and the defendant brought this to the attention of the district court before trial (E) holding that a plenary suit is required to invoke the district courts supervisory control over the commissioners court
Output (English): holding that the district court should have quashed an indictment without requiring the target to show prejudice because the district attorney improperly exercised control over the selection and excusal of grand jurors and the defendant brought this to the attention of the district court before trial