noting that the supreme court’s rule-making power is subordinate to the legislature’s
How later courts described this case
- noting that the supreme court’s rule-making power is subordinate to the legislature’s
- “The power and authority of a state legislature is plenary and its extent is limited only by the express or implied restrictions thereon contained in or necessarily arising from the Constitution itself.”
- granting of continuance made mandatory by statute on application of attorney who is member of Legislature and attending its sessions
- trial court’s general discretion to grant or deny continuances is denied the court by statute in cases where the application for continuance is made by member of the legislature attending its sessions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOTION FOR REHEARING
This Court’s original opinion adequately disposes of the issues raised by the petition for mandamus and the answer thereto. It was stated in the opinion that questions involving the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Sections 13 and 19, of the Texas Constitution were not raised. They are not effectively raised now despite the Attorney General’s attempt to expand his original position in his motion for rehearing. The order of Judge Jones denying Senator Spears’ application for a statutory continuance is based solely upon Article II, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution and the record in this Court is not developed so as to support any other constitutional position or contention. The motion for rehearing is overruled.