TX · rules
Tex. R. App. P. 41.1
Decision by Panel
(a) Constitution of Panel. Unless a court of
appeals with more than three justices votes to
decide a case en banc, a case must be
assigned for decision to a panel of the court
consisting of three justices, although not
every member of the panel must be present
for argument. If the case is decided without
argument, three justices must participate in
the decision. A majority of the panel, which
constitutes a quorum, must agree on the
judgment. Except as otherwise provided in
these rules, a panel's opinion constitutes the
court's opinion, and the court must render a
judgment in accordance with the panel
opinion.
(b) When Panel Cannot Agree on Judgment.
After argument, if for any reason a member
of the panel cannot participate in deciding a
case, the case may be decided by the two
remaining justices. If they cannot agree on a
judgment, the chief justice of the court of
appeals must:
(1) designate another justice of the court to
sit on the panel to consider the case;
(2) request the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court to temporarily assign an eligible
justice or judge to sit on the panel to
consider the case; or
(3) convene the court en banc to consider the
case. The reconstituted panel or the en
banc court may order the case reargued.
(c) When Court Cannot Agree on Judgment.
After argument, if for any reason a member
of a court consisting of only three justices
cannot participate in deciding a case, the case
may be decided by the two remaining
justices. If they cannot agree on a judgment,
that fact must be certified to the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may
then temporarily assign an eligible justice or
judge to sit with the court of appeals to
consider the case. The reconstituted court
may order the case reargued.
History
Notes and Comments Comment to 1997 change: This is former Rule 79. The rule is reorganized. Paragraphs 41.1(b) and (c) are amended to make clear that a three judge panel must hear the case. Therefore, only if a member of a panel is lost after argument do the provisions for appointment of another justice to break a deadlock come into play. Paragraph 41.2(a) is amended to define an en banc court. Comment to 2008 change: Subdivisions 41.1 and 41.2 are amended to acknowledge the full authority of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to temporarily assign a justice or judge to hear a matter pending in an appellate court. The statutory provisions governing the assignment of judges to appellate courts are located in Chapters 74 and 75 of the Government Code. Other minor changes are made for consistency. Subdivision 41.3 is added to require, in appellate cases transferred by the Supreme Court under Se ction 73.001 of the Government Code for docket equalization or other purposes, that the transferee court must generally resolve any conflict between the precedent of the transferor court and the precedent of the transferee court — or that of any other intermediate appellate court the transferee court otherwise would have followed — by following the precedent of the transferor court, unless it appears that the transferor court itself would not be bound by that precedent. The rule requires the transferee cou rt to “stand in the shoes” of the transferor court so that an appellate transfer will not produce a different outcome, based on application of substantive law, than would have resulted had the case not been transferred. The transferee court is not expected to follow the transferor court’s local rules or otherwise supplant its own local procedures with those of the transferor court.
Provenance
- Source
- txcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
8d18ab8403a818a8f9c04a1d10dcb998b7f807c21d70ad642bce5b605e37b141
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.