law-ILA-governmental-entities-and-officials | interlocutory appeals | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8)
interlocutory appeal from order denying special-appearance | interlocutory appeals (ILA) | arbitration and
interlocutory appeals | finality of order appealed from | interlocutory review of rulings on governmental unit's plea
to the jurisdiction | accelerated interlocutory appeals from temporary injunction orders (grant or denial) |
permissive-interlocutory-appeal  | no final judgment | dismissal of appeal for want of jurisdiction |

Although a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction may be construed as a plea to the jurisdiction, see Klein v.
Hernandez, 260 S.W.3d 1, 4, 8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. granted on other grounds)
(construing motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as plea to jurisdiction), only a governmental unit may bring
an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
51.014(a)(8) (Vernon 2008); Young v. Villegas, 231 S.W.3d 1, 6–7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet.
denied).

INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS INVOLVING GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

Harris County Flood Control District v. Great American Ins. Co. (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 25, 2010)
(Hedges) (plea to the jurisdiction governmental immunity, prompt payment act, quantum meruit)
Appellant, Harris County Flood Control District, appeals from the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction on the claims of appellee,
Great American Insurance Company, for quantum meruit and attorney’s fees.  Because we conclude that appellant has not
waived its immunity relative to those claims, we reverse and dismiss in part, affirm in part, and remand.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges      
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Seymore and Senior Justice Margaret Mirabal    
14-09-00571-CV  Harris County Flood Control District v. Great American Insurance Company    Appeal from
157th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:  Randy Wilson
In its response brief, appellee argues this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal
because appellant did not assert governmental immunity as a bar to the entire case.  Appellee cites two cases
in support of this argument: Speer v. Stover, 685 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Tex. 1985) and City of Cleburne v. Trussell, 10
S.W.3d 407, 410 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.).  These cases stand for the proposition that “the granting of
a plea to the jurisdiction on the basis that some of the damages pled are not recoverable would be erroneous.”  
City of Cleburne, 10 S.W.3d at 410 (emphasis in original).  However, this line of cases has been overruled by
the Texas Supreme Court in Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. 2006). In Thomas, the Texas
Supreme Court held “[a] trial court is not required to deny an otherwise meritorious plea to the jurisdiction or
motion for summary judgment based on a jurisdictional challenge concerning some claims because the trial
court has jurisdiction over other claims.”  Id.  To be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, all section 51.014(a)(8) of
the Civil Practice & Remedies Code requires is the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.  Id. at 340.  We conclude
that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Mirabal in Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Great American Ins. Co. (re
immunity from liability and attorneys fees)    

Attempted interlocutory appeal in whistleblower suit did not involve jurisdictional issues -
dismissed because not authorized by statute
Galveston ISD v. Jaco (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 15, 2007)(Hedges)(public employment, school law
case, WBA, ILA dismissed DWOJ, arguments advanced by ISD in motion for summary judgment are not
jurisdictional)
DISMISSED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
14-07-00313-CV Galveston Independent School District v. Brent Jaco
Appeal from 56th District Court of Galveston County (Hon. Lonnie Cox)

Medina v. Benkiser (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 31, 2009)(Hanks)
(trial court had no jurisdiction on modify judgment and add attorney's fee award after appeal completed)
VACATE TRIAL COUR JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE: Opinion by Justice Hanks    
Before Justices Keyes, Alcala and Hanks   
01-08-00777-CV  Debra Medina, Mallory Miller, Jr., Dustan Costine, Chad Creighton, Richard Wyatt and Kay
Fisher v. Tina Benkiser and The Republican Party of Texas   
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Roberta A. Lloyd
Citing to Civil Practices & Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4), appellees now attempt to cast Medina I as an
interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dissolve a TRO. They argue that the county court,
therefore, retained jurisdiction over the controversy after our opinion and judgment issued. However, at the time
the appeal was filed, the parties agreed that the trial court's order dismissed the cause and this Court
acknowledged in its opinion the finality of the judgment dismissing the cause. Appellants cannot now recast their
appeal after our judgment and mandate. Moreover, a party, cannot appeal from an interlocutory order of a
county court at law granting or denying a plea to jurisdiction unless that party is a governmental unit. Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon 2008). Appellees do not fit the definition of a governmental
unit, nor do they attempt to contend that they could do so. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.001(3)
(Vernon 2008). Appellees, therefore, could not--and did not--file an interlocutory appeal in Medina I.

Governmental official entitled to sovereign immunity dismissal, and to interlocutory appeal when the
trial court denies plea to the jurisdiction

Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, No. 05-0321 (Tex. Sep. 7, 2007)(Green)    
(public employment law, sovereign immunity, breach of settlement agreement, ILA, opportunity to amend)


Young., M.D. and Baylor College of Medicine v. Silva Villegas (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2007)
(Frost)(HCLC, interlocutory appeal, ILA, immunity claim, doctors vs. entity defendant, supported medical school,
who may take interlocutory appeal?, effect of nonsuit on standing)
This court lacks appellate jurisdiction over Baylor’s appeal from the trial court’s order because Baylor had been nonsuited before
the trial court signed the order and because in that order the trial court did not rule on any motion filed by Baylor.  This court does
not have appellate jurisdiction over Dr. Young’s appeal from the denial of her plea to the jurisdiction because she is not a
governmental unit.  Based on section 312.007 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, this court has appellate jurisdiction to review
the trial court’s denial of the Summary Judgment Motions as to Dr. Young, but because Dr. Young did not prove as a matter of law
that she is entitled to the protections of section 312.006, the trial court properly denied these motions as to her.  Accordingly, we
dismiss Baylor’s appeal in its entirety and dismiss Dr. Young’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of the Pleas to the Jurisdiction.  
We affirm the trial court’s order denying the Summary Judgment Motions as to Dr. Young.

CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS  

HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE