# Lanford v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 17, 1993 · 847 S.W.2d 581

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764158

## Case

- **Full name:** The Honorable Norman LANFORD, Relator, v. the FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 17, 1993
- **Citations:** 847 S.W.2d 581; 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 40; 1993 WL 37430
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** Campbell, Clinton, McCormick
- **Cited by:** 87 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764158

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that when a statute read literally and in context is capable of being understood in two ways, it is classically ambiguous when the parties take polarized positions
- finding ambiguous a statute silent on whether "a case" refers to a criminal case or a civil case

## Opinion text

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Believing the Court of Appeals correctly decided the issue here presented, I respectfully dissent. The majority notes that “there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history of the 1991 amendments suggesting anyone intended for subsection (d) to apply to civil and criminal cases.” (Op. at 587, emphasis in original.) Likewise, there is nothing in that history suggesting the Legislature intended to exclude criminal cases from the application of subsection (d).
Whatever arguments would support this procedure in civil cases would, I believe, be equally applicable to criminal cases. Further, the Legislature has made obvious distinctions between former and retired judges. The jeopardy the majority foresees in the Court of Appeals’ analysis applies as well to civil matters.
*589 I would adopt the Court of Appeals' analysis in all respects.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764158. Public record. Not legal advice.