TX · rules
Tex. R. App. P. 41.2
Decision by En Banc Court
(a) Constitution of En Banc Court. An en banc
court consists of all members of the court
who are not disqualified or recused and — if
the case was originally argued before or
decided by a panel — any members of the
panel who are not members of the court but
remain eligible for assignment to the court. A
majority of the en banc court constitute a
quorum. A majority of the en banc court must
agree on a judgment.
(b) When En Banc Court Cannot Agree on
Judgment. If a majority of an en banc court
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 reconstitut ed court may order the
case reargued.
(c) En Banc Consideration Disfavored. En
banc consideration of a case is not favored
and should not be ordered unless necessary to
secure or maintain uniformity of the court's
decisions or unless extraordinary
circumstances require en banc consideration.
A vote to determine whether a case will be
considered or reconsidered en banc need not
be taken unless a justice of the court requests
a vote. If a vote is requested and a majority of
the court's members vote to consider or
reconsider the case en banc, the en banc court
will consider or re consider the case.
Otherwise, a panel of the court will consider
the case.
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
98d4f0efc8e9be443d9c225d94e912283cd928a6669f7928fa518aa5f74dd68a
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.