green
Positive treatment
Issue: incompatibility doctrineTX ↗
Issue: public policy exceptionFL ↗
Quoted verbatim 4×
21.2 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 6 distinct cases, 2002–2026 · 2 courts ·
…it is because of the obvious incompatibility of being both a member of a body making the appointment and an appointee of that body that the courts have with great unanimity throughout the country declared that all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appoi…
⚠ not in text
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2004–2025 ·
…all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint.
at p. 674
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2007–2024 · 2 courts ·
…all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint
at p. 674
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1929 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1929
1977
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
ajii officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Opinion No.
all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
al1 officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Opinion No.
all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Goloby and Richard Vega v. Lesley Briones, Adrian Garcia, Lina Hidalgo, Rodney Ellis, and Tom Ramsey, All in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Harris County Commissioners' Court
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
CODE § 9502.0204.3 Appellants point to Ehlinger’s language that the commissioners court “cannot appoint as its attorney one of its own members, to wit, the county judge, . . . and that, therefore, the contract of his employment as attorney, in so far as it provided for compensation, was void.” 8 S.W.2d at 674 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0486
As explained by the Texas Supreme Court, self-appointment incompatibility dictates that “all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint.” Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0474
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Harley David Belew v. the State of Texas
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (1928) (noting that “all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Pena - Page 2 (KP-0023) power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint." Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Self-appointment incompatibility derives from the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928) (voiding a county contract employing county commissioner as an attorney relying on the rule that officers who have the appointing power are "disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 670-72 (Tex. 1928) (holding that the county could grant an oil and gas lease for a royalty, in part because "there was no authority in law for the county [itself] to enter upon the costly experiment of exploring for oil on its school lands").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Opinion No.
Cf. Ehlinger , 8 S.W.2d at 674 (holding that under the common-law prohibition on self-appointment, a commissioners court "cannot appoint as its attorney one of its own members, to wit, the county judge").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
The self-employment prong of the incompatibility doctrine, while it ultimately derives from a 1928 case, Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928), was not recognized in Texas law until a 1975 attorney general opinion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
(2×)
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Dist., 290 S.W. 152 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1927, judgm’t adopted) and Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
The Honorable Warren Chisum - Page 3 (JC-0557) have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint.” Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ehlinger, 8 S.W.2d at 674 (ruling that county judge could not be employed as attorney by the commissioners court over which the judge presided).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Op. No. H-1025 (1977) at 2 (quoting Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,671 (Tex. 1928)) (re ferring to county authority to include automatic-extension provision in lease); Tex. Att’y Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
EhZinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928).“).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Opinion No.
Ehlinger , 8 S.W.2d at 674 (ruling that county judge could not be employed as attorney by the commissioners court over which the judge presided).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 671 (Tex. 1928).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
In explaining why a cotipty judge could not receive payment for acting as attor+y,,for the county to enforce a contract and collect indebtedness’ due, the Supreme Court of Texas observed in Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S. W. 2d 666,674 (Tex. Sup. 1928), that the county judge, as a member of the commissioners court was charged with insisting that contractors with the county properly perform their contracts, and “if, after an attorney was employed, it should be found that the attorney was not performing his duties in a competent or faithful manner, it would become the duty of the commissioner,@’ c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Malcolm J. Henley and Mary K. Henley v. The United States
In the meantime, the case of Ehlinger v. Clark, 117 Tex. 547 , 8 S.W.2d 666 *973 (1928) caused some confusion by indicating that the entire mineral estate was separated from the surface and passed to the lessee in an oil and gas lease.
discussed
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0487
Op. No. KP-0434 (2023) at 2; see Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928) (holding that a county judge could not be employed as an attorney by the commissioners court over which the judge presided).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0434
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928); Tex. Att'y Gen.
discussed
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ehlinger, 8 S.W.2d at 674 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See Ehlinger v. Clark , 8 S.W.2d 666 , 674 (Tex. 1928) ("It is because of the obvious incompatibility of being both a member of a body making the appointment and an appointee of that body that the courts have with great unanimity throughout the country declared that all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint."); Tex. Att'y Gen.
discussed
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tex. 1928) (Hit is because of the obvious incompatibility of being both a member of a body making the appointment and an appointee of that body that the courts have with great unanimity throughout the country declared that all officers who have the appointing power are disqualified for appointment to the offices to which they may appoint."); Tex. Att'y Gen.
cited
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See Ehlinger v. Clark , 8 S.W.2d 666 , 674 (Tex. 1928) (self-appointment); Thomas v. Abernathy County Line Indep.
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928) (self-appointment); Thomas v. Abernathy County Line Indep.
cited
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666 , 674 (Tex. 1928); Thomas v. Abernathy County Line Indep.
cited
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See Ehlinger v. Clark , 8 S.W.2d 666 , 674 (Tex. 1928); see also Tex. Att'y Gen.
discussed
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
(2×)
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928); see also Tex. Att’y Gen.
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928); Thomas v. Abernathy County LineIndep.
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928).
cited
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666,674 (Tex. 1928).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
D. J. McDaniel
v.
J. T. Robison, Commissioner of General Land Office, Et Al.
v.
J. T. Robison, Commissioner of General Land Office, Et Al.
No. 4991..
Texas Supreme Court.
Jun 25, 1928.
Black Graves and Chas. L. Black, for relator.
R. L. Batts and J. T. Robison, for respondent.
Hill, Neill Hill, for co-respondent Yates.
F. A. Williams, Underwood, Johnson, Dooley Simpson, T. R. Freeman, S.W. Marshall, T. L. Foster, J. W. Timmins, and John L. Young, filed briefs as amici curiae.
See briefs in Greene v. Robison, ante, p. 516.
Pierson.
Published
Mr. Justice PIERSON
delivered the opinion of the court.
Relator, D. J. McDaniel, seeks a mandamus to require J. T. Robison, Commissioner of the General Land Office, to issue to him a permit to prospect for oil and gas on Section No. 34y2, Block 194, Certificate S. F. 12394, containing 1107 acres of land, in Pecos County, Texas, under the Permit and Lease Act of 1917.
On February 4, 1921, said tract of land was awarded and sold to I. G. Yates, classified as “mineral,” and was sold with a reservation of the minerals to the State of Texas.
Relator on November 8, 1926, applied for a permit to prospect for oil and gas on said area under the Permit and Léase Act of 1917. Respondent Robison rejected relator’s application, upon the ground that the area was not subject to the application on account of the provisions of the so-called Relinquishment Act of 1919, and that said Act repealed and superseded the Permit and Lease Act of 1917. Relator challénges the constitutionality and validity of said Relinquishment Act. ’
This case is in all essential respects similar to the case of Greene v. Robison et al., opinion this day delivered. (Ante, p. 516.) In that case this Court upheld the constitutionality and validity of said Relinquishment Act. For the reasons given in that case, relator is not entitled to a mandamus, and same is denied.