Texas Attorney General Opinion: DM-498 Page: 9 of 10
10 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Mr. Ron Allen - Page 9
county of the residence of the person against whom such injunction proceedings are instituted."2
The general rule of venue found in section 15.002 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides
that a lawsuit shall be brought "in the county of [the] defendant's residence at the time the cause of
action accrued if defendant is a natural person," and "in the county of the defendant's principal office
in this state, ifthe defendant is not a naturalperson."28 Section 17 incorporates the venue provision
for natural persons, indicating that the legislature contemplated that the injunction remedy would
apply only to natural persons.
Section 7.22 of the Penal Code states the rule for determining whether a criminal penalty
such as section 4 of article 8890, V.T.C.S., applies to corporations.9 Section 7.22 provides in part:
(a) If conduct constituting an offense is performed by an agent acting in
behalf of a corporation or association and within the scope of his office or
employment, the corporation or association is criminally responsible for an
offense defined:
(1) in this code where corporations and associations are made subject
thereto;
(2) by law other than this code in which a legislative purpose to impose
criminal responsibility on corporations or associations plainly appears;
or
(3) by law other than this code for which strict liability is imposed
.... [Emphasis added.]
Section 4 of article 8890, V.T.C.S., the criminal penalty provision, states that "a person may
not practice, offer or attempt to practice veterinary medicine in the State without first having
obtained a valid license to do so." No legislative purpose to impose criminal responsibility on
corporations or associations plainly appears in section 4. Accordingly, it does not subject
corporations to criminal prosecution. We conclude, in answer to your fourth question, that none of
the remedies we have discussed enable the board to take action or to request another officer to take
action against a corporation engaged in the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine.30
"If the person does not reside in the state, venue is in Travis County. V.T.C.S. art. 8890, 17.
28Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 15.002(a)(2), (3) (emphasis added).
"See generally Vaughan & Sons, Inc. v. State, 737 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (en banc).
"oAn action in the nature of quo warranto is available if "a corporation exercises power not granted by law."
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 66.001(5). If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the county or district
(continued...)p. 2850
(DM-498)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
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: DM-498, text, December 22, 1998; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth274307/m1/9/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.