Court Opinion

ID: 9648045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:00:24.198649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:55.308472
License: Public Domain

WHITTINGTON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that the following blanket objection meets the requirements of section 74.053 of the Texas Government Code:
[[Image here]]
The majority’s approval of this form of objection raises more questions than it answers:
• Is this an objection to a retired judge under Section 74.053(b) or an objection *604to a former judge under Section 74.053(d)?
• Has the party lodging the objection used its one objection against a retired judge or only one of its unlimited objections to a former judge?
• Can an attorney now use such a blanket objection to avoid the assignment of a visiting judge in every case?
• Because the individual judge is not identified, would all visiting judges in the State of Texas be subject to this objection?
In spite of all the obvious defects in the objection, the only one I consider to be fatal is the failure to identify the judge who is the target of the objection. How can any of the questions raised above be answered without knowing the identity of the judge?
Requesting a positive identification of the judge in a section 74.053 objection does not place an overwhelming burden on the objecting party. While a party could simply include the judge’s name in the motion, other information that would positively identify the judge, such as reference to the judge’s assignment to a court on a specified date, would be sufficient. Without a name or other information positively identifying the judge, I would hold that the objection is insufficient under section 74.053.