In Santana v. Texas Workforce Commission, No. 03-05-00452-CV, WL 2330714 (Tex. App.--Austin Aug. 16, 2007, no pet.), Santana argued that "because the trial court, a statutory county court, has concurrent jurisdiction with constitutional county courts and because constitutional county courts are not empowered to hear defamation suits, the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his suit for defamation." The Austin Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that nothing in section 26.043 refers to county courts at law that possess civil jurisdiction concurrent with the district courts. Id. The specific grant of jurisdiction to the Travis County statutory courts states that "in addition to the jurisdiction conferred generally by section 25.0003 and other law, a county court at law in Travis County has concurrent jurisdiction in civil cases with the district court." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 25.2292(a) (Vernon 2004). Accordingly, the court found that the specific provision, applying only to Travis County, controls, and, thus, Travis County statutory courts have concurrent jurisdiction in civil cases with the district courts. However, the Austin Court of Appeal's statement that section 26.043 does not apply constitutes dicta because the court ultimately held that the Travis County courts at law had jurisdiction over the claim due to the legislature's specific grant of jurisdiction concurrent with the district courts. Id.