law-ILA | Also see HCLC cases (interlocutory appeal or mandamus re: sufficiency of expert report)
common interlocutory appeals | health care liability suits re motion to dismiss | governmental entity and
immunity | temporary injunction appeals |
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
“Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have
jurisdiction over final judgments.” Id.; see also Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266,
272 (Tex. 1992). “We strictly apply statutes granting interlocutory appeals because they are a
narrow exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable.”
CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 447; see also Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352,
355 (Tex. 2001).
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8) (permitting appeal from an interlocutory order that
denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit).
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS - TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Austin State Hospital v. Graham, No. 10-0674 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)(per curiam opinion)(governmental
employee's interlocutory appeal)
The issue presented is whether an employee of a governmental unit may take an interlocutory appeal from
an order denying his motion to dismiss based on section 101.106(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code. We hold that he can and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 319 S.W.3d 905
(Tex. App.-Dallas 2010).
AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, DR. VIKAR NUZHATH AND DR. ERIK LINDFORS v. JOEL GRAHAM; from
Dallas County; 5th district (05-09-01312-CV, 319 SW3d 905, 08-04-10)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Link to e-briefs: AUSTIN STATE HOSP. v. GRAHAM
LTTS Charter School, Inc. v. C2 Construction Inc., No. 09-0794 (Tex. Jun. 17, 2011)(Willett)(charter school
a governmental unit for tort claims purposes)(interlocutory appeal of immunity ruling permitted).
Because Universal Academy is a “governmental unit” under the Tort Claims Act, the court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear
Universal Academy’s interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(8).76 Our holding does not resolve the underlying issue
of whether Universal Academy enjoys immunity from C2’s contract claim. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment
dismissing the appeal and remand to that court for further proceedings.
LTTS CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. D/B/A UNIVERSAL ACADEMY v. C2 CONSTRUCTION, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-07-01469-CV, 288 SW3d 31, 02-02-09) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to
that court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Guzman delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice
Medina joined. [pdf]
A party’s ability to take an interlocutory appeal is a limited exception to the general rule that only final
orders are appealable. As applicable here, the contours of that exception are found in sections 51.014(a)
(8) and 101.001(3) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Despite these limits, the Court embarks on a
perilous expedition through the Education Code in an attempt to locate some indicia that the Legislature
intended to allow privately run, open-enrollment charter schools to take this circumscribed form of appeal.
In so doing, the Court ventures beyond the narrow procedural question presented in this case: whether a
privately run, open-enrollment charter school is a “governmental unit” as defined by section 101.001(3) of
the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. If it is, then an interlocutory appeal is proper from denial of a plea
to the jurisdiction by the school, as authorized by section 51.014(a)(8). But, because it is not, I would affirm
the court of appeals. Privately run, open-enrollment charter schools do not meet the Legislature’s
definition as set out in section 101.001(3), and therefore no interlocutory appeal may be taken from an
order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction by such a school.
Conclusion. Because (1) the plain meaning of Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.001(3)
does not cover a privately run, open-enrollment charter school like LTTS, and (2) the Court has effectively
resolved the underlying substance of whether such schools enjoy immunity from suit, rather than the
procedural issue properly before us, I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the court of appeals’ holding
that it lacked jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.
See E-briefs in 09-0794 LTTS CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. v. C2 CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Klein, MD and BCM v. Hernandez, No. 08-0453 (Tex. May 7, 2010)(Tex. May 7, 2010)(Medina)
(medical resident at private state-supported medical school working in public hospital entitled to bring
interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment motion based on immunity defense)
GEOFFREY KLEIN, M.D. AND BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. CYNTHIA HERNANDEZ, AS THE
PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF N.H., A MINOR; from Harris County;
1st district (01‑06‑00569‑CV, 260 SW3d 1, 04‑17‑08) 2 petitions
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in GEFFREY KLEIN, M.D. and BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. HERNANDEZ
Zimmerman, MD v. Gonzalez Anaya, No. 08-0580 (Tex. May 7, 2010) (Tex. May 7, 2010)(per curiam)
(right to interlocutory appeal of medical resident of state-supported medical school; government employee
status)
GEOFFREY ZIMMERMAN, M.D. v. WENDY GONZALEZ ANAYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N/F OF
CHRISTOPHER GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, DECEASED; from Harris County;
1st district (01‑07‑00570‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06‑05‑08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in GEOFFREY ZIMMERMAN, M.D. v. ANAYA
UT Southwestern Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentillello, MD, No. 08-0696 (Tex. Dec. 18, 2009)(per curiam)
(Whistleblower case remanded in light of decision, holding in State v. Lueck)
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER AT DALLAS v. LARRY M.
GENTILELLO, M.D.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-07-00845-CV, 260 SW3d 221, 07-18-08)
motion to dismiss dismissed as moot
stay order issued October 2, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
The Medical Center filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Gentilello’s claims were barred by
governmental immunity because he failed to allege a violation under the Whistleblower Act. The trial court
denied the plea to the jurisdiction and the Medical Center appealed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code §
51.014(a)(8) (permitting appeal from an interlocutory order that denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a
governmental unit).
Leland, DDS v. Brandal, No. 06-1028 (Tex. June 13, 2008)(O'Neill) (conflicts jurisdiction, HCLC 30-day-
extension to file expert report)(Remand proper for grant of 30-day extension by trial court where expert
report found deficient for the first time in interlocutory appeal)
JOHN LELAND, D.D.S. v. GEORGE C. BRANDAL AND RUTH L. BRANDAL; from Bandera County;
4th district (04-05-00855-CV, 217 SW3d 60, 09-13-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Scott Brister delivered a dissenting opinion.
Lewis, MD v. Funderburk, No. 06-0518 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008) (Brister) (HCLC, interlocutory appeal)
RORY LEWIS, M.D. v. DEWAYNE FUNDERBURK, AS NEXT FRIEND OF WHITNEY FUNDERBURK; from
Limestone County; 10th district (10-05-00197-CV, 191 S.W.3d 756, 04-05-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
County of Dallas v. Sempe, No. 05-0022 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(per curiam)(no conflicts jurisdiction, petition
ungranted) The petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Bowden v. Phillips Petroleum Co., No. 03-0824 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice Wainwright)
(class action de-certification, oil gas and minerals, royalty owners, interlocutory appeal)
COURT OF APPEALS CASES IN WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED REVIEW
08-0599
LANGSTON, SWEET & FREESE, P.A. AND SWEET & FREESE, P.L.L.C. v. CLETUS P. ERNSTER, III;
CLETUS P. ERNSTER, III, P.C.; AND R.G. TAYLOR, II, P.C.; from Jefferson County; 9th district
(09-07-00435-CV, 255 SW3d 402, 05-08-08) (special appearance, personal jurisdiction, interlocutory
appeal)
In this lawsuit over division of litigation expenses, two law firms and an individual attorney filed special
appearance motions challenging the trial court's jurisdiction over them. The trial court denied the motions,
and this interlocutory appeal followed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(7) (Vernon Supp.
2007). We conclude the trial court has jurisdiction over the law firms but not the individual attorney.We
affirm the trial court's order denying the special appearance motions of Langston, Sweet, & Freese and
Sweet & Freese. Richard Freese's contacts are insufficient to support either general or specific jurisdiction
on this record. We reverse the order denying his special appearance, and instruct the trial court to dismiss
Richard Freese from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions homepage |