Texas Attorney General Opinion: MW-590 Page: 3 of 6
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Dr. Robert Bernstein - Page 3
any department, commission, board, office,
institution, or other agency that is in the
executive branch of state government, has
authority that is not limited to a geographical
portion of the state, and was created by the
constitution or a statute of this state, but does
not include [certain departments and institu-
In our opinion, these two state hospitals are "institutions" which
satisfy each of the conditions for being a "state agency" set forth in
The second question concerns the relationship between article
4393c and section 6A of article 3201a-3. Although the former statute,
which was enacted in 1981, generally requires state agencies to
deposit in the state treasury any fees or other funds that they
collect or receive, the latter, which was added to article 3201a-3 in
1975, provides that fees and charges collected pursuant to that
statute "shall be retained locally." The question is whether section
6A constitutes an exception to article 4393c.
Although our courts have held that repeals of statutes by
implication are not favored, Hines v. State, 515 S.W.2d 670 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1974), and that the enactment of a general law does not
ordinarily impliedly repeal a special law, Flowers v. Pecos River R.
Company, 156 S.W.2d 260 (Tex. 1941), they have also held that:
Where a later enactment is intended to embrace all
the law upon the subject with which it deals, it
repeals all former laws relating to the same
subject. Gordon v. Lake, 163 Tex. 392, 356 S.W.2d
138 (1962). Under this rule, a statute that
covers the subject matter of a former law and is
evidently intended as a substitute for it,
although containing no express words to that
effect, operates as a repeal of the former law to
the extent that its provisions are revised and its
field freshly covered. See Motor Inv. Co. v.
Hamlin, 142 Tex. 486, 179 S.W.2d 278 (1944).
McInnis v. State, 603 S.W.2d 179, 183 (Tex. 1980). We believe that
this rule is applicable here. In our view, although article 4393
contains no express words of repeal, its comprehensiveness and detail,
i.e., its application to "all fees... collected or received by a state
agency" (emphasis added), coupled with the fact that it lists only
certain specific exceptions, compel the conclusion that its purpose
was to "embrace all the law on the subject with which it deals." See
also Bill Analysis of House Bill No. 1623, prepared for House
Committee on Ways and Means (which indicates that the purpose of the
Here’s what’s next.
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: MW-590, text, 1982; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth272436/m1/3/: accessed May 23, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.