law-ILA 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 |
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS:
Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if expressly permitted by statute. Bally
Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co.,
Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
With certain exceptions made explicit by statute, the courts of appeals have
jurisdiction to review only final judgments. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.
W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.
2001).
The court of appeals must independently determine whether it has jurisdiction over an
appeal, even if no party contests jurisdiction. M. O. Dental Lab .v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d
671, 673 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam); HEB Grocery Co., L.P. v. Kirksey, No. 14-10-
00217-CV, 2010 WL 1790878, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 6, 2010, no
pet.) (per curiam). Unless a statute specifically authorizes an interlocutory appeal,
appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); HEB Grocery Co., 2010 WL 1790878, at *1.
We construe statutes granting interlocutory appeals strictly because they comprise a
narrow exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately
appealable. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2007);
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001).
RECENT CASES FROM THE HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS
No Interlocutory appeal from order granting mistrial
Vo v. Doan (pdf) (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 4, 2010)(per curiam dismissal)
(no interlocutory appeal permitted from trial court's order granting mistrial)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Christopher
14-09-01009-CV Andrew T. Vo d/b/a Larry Vo, Viet Le, Tam Van Le, and Vo-Le, Inc. v. Ho Kim Doan Appeal
from 129th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Michael Gomez
No Interlocutory Appeal of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Involving Nongovernmental Parties
[B]ecause appellant seeks to appeal an interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction to consider her appeal
unless the order is one for which interlocutory appeal is permitted under the statutory provisions of section
51.014 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)
(Vernon 2008) (listing interlocutory orders from which interlocutory appeal may be taken); Jack B. Anglin
Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (holding that Texas appellate courts only have appellate
jurisdiction over appeals from final orders or judgments, unless statute permits appeal from interlocutory
order).
The interlocutory order of which appellant complains is not one for which an interlocutory appeal is
permitted. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a). Appellant cites no statutory basis for our
jurisdiction to consider her interlocutory appeal. Appellant does contend that jurisdictional issues can be
raised at any time, including on appeal. As noted previously, that tenet of law relates to the preservation of
the issue for appellate review, not the jurisdiction of a reviewing court to consider an appeal. Huther, 43 S.
W.3d at 667 n.2. Regardless of the claim being made on appeal, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to
consider interlocutory appeals when specifically provided for by statutory authority. See Young v. Villegas,
231 S.W.3d 1, 4, 6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (rejecting argument that appellate
court had jurisdiction because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction could be raised at any time” and holding
that appellate court had no jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory appeal absent statutory authority, even
when contention on appeal was that trial court lacked jurisdiction). In the present case, the interlocutory
order sought to be appealed is not one for which an interlocutory appeal is authorized.[3] See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a). Accordingly, even if appellant had filed a timely notice of appeal, we
would be required to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Young, 231 S.W.3d at 6.
Siddiqui v. Unlimited Asset Recovery, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009)(Sharp)
(credit card debt suit, JP court and amount in controversy, jurisdictional limit, transfer from JP court to county
court, notice of appeal not timely, interlocutory appeal not authorized)
DISMISS APPEAL 11/19: Opinion by Justice Sharp
Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp
01-09-00026-CV Iram Siddiqui v. Unlimited Asset Recovery, Inc.
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Roberta A. Lloyd
The general rule, with a few exceptions, is that an appellant can only appeal from a final judgment.
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for the purposes of appeal
if it disposes of all parties and all claims, except as necessary to carry out the decree. Id. An appellant may
appeal an interlocutory order only if authorized by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d
352, 352 (Tex. 2001). An order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigency is an interlocutory order not
included in the list of orders made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014
(a) (Vernon 2008). Since there is no final judgment in this case and no statutory authorization, we lack
subject-matter jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order sustaining the district clerk’s
contest to Dyer’s affidavit of indigency. See Aguilar v. Tex. La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV,
2009 Tex. App, LEXIS 3883, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.); Gonzales v.
Flores, No. 14-08-00991-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 3790, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 26,
2009, no pet.).
Dyer v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles (pdf) (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 14, 2009)(Bland)
(petition for expunction of an arrest record pursuant to Chapter 55 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01 (Vernon Supp. 2009), finality issue and appellate jurisdiction, DWOJ)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Jane Bland
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Bland and Massengale
01-08-00884-CV Fredrick Dwayne Dyer v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
Appeal from 190th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Patricia J. Kerrigan
On November 23, 2009, we issued an order informing Dyer of our intent to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless
within thirty days he files a response demonstrating that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Dyer has filed no response. Conclusion:The trial court’s order sustaining the district clerk’s contest to Dyer’s affidavit of
indigency is an interlocutory order that is neither final nor appealable. We therefore dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Because the sanctions order does not dispose of all parties and claims in the case, it is not a final
judgment. See Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1986).
Nor is it an order identified by statute that is subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2(b)(8); In re Supportkids, Inc., 124 S.W.3d
804, 808–09 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding) (observing that discovery sanctions
order is subject to review on appeal from final judgment). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the
sanctions order.
Morris, MD v. Umberson (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 5, 2009)(Jennings) (HCLC, interlocutory appeal
re extension of deadline for expert report not authorized and dismissed for want of jurisdiction)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Jennings
(Because section 51.014(a)(9) plainly prohibits interlocutory appeals of orders granting extensions, appeal
is premature and is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)(attempted interlocutory appeal dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction) Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp
01-09-00644-CV Michael Morris, M.D.'s v. Mary Umberson
Appeal from 269th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dan Hinde
Moore v. Verizon Wireless (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 29, 2009)(per curiam)
(ILA, interlocutory appeal and arbitration)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Frost, Brown and Boyce
14-08-01164-CV Walter Moore v. Verizon Wireless and Derrick Keys
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 3 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Linda Storey
The Texas Arbitration Act allows interlocutory appeals solely from orders that deny arbitration. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code §171.098(a)(1), (2); Chambers v. O'Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 31 (Tex. 2007).
Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Concierge Care Nursing Centers, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 8,
2009)(Jennings)(ILA, no interlocutory appeal from order striking intervention, DWOJ)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Jennings
Before Justices Jennings, Hanks and Bland
01-08-00005-CV Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Concierge Care Nursing Centers, Inc. and Houston
Concierge Care, L.P., et als--Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County
Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. ("Rimkus"), seeks to challenge the trial court's interlocutory order striking its
petition in intervention. Rimkus contends that the trial court erred in striking its petition in intervention.
Here, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court has entered a final judgment in the
underlying matter, and no severance order appears in the record. Because the order striking Rimkus's
intervention is interlocutory, Rimkus may not appeal until the trial court renders a final judgment disposing of
all legal issues between all parties. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Sloan v. Sloan (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2008)(per curiam)
(no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory order denying indigency status)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Guzman and Brown
14-08-00181-CV Andre Sloan v. Doreen (Baker) Sloan
Appeal from 312th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: David D. Farr
There is no statute providing for an interlocutory appeal of the court's ruling on indigency for trial
proceedings. Lomax v. Thomas, No. 14-08-00163-CV, 2008 WL 4308610, 1 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th
Dist.] Aug. 28, 2008, no pet. h.). Thus, an order denying indigent status may not be appealed before entry
of final judgment. In contrast, a trial court's indigency ruling pertaining to an already pending appeal is
appealable.
Lomax v. Thomas (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug 28, 2008)(per curiam)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam (DWOJ, interlocutory appeal not authorized)
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Guzman and Brown
14-08-00163-CV Mark Lomax v. Tommy B. Thomas Et Al
Appeal from 55th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Jeff Shadwick
There is no statute providing for an interlocutory appeal of the court's ruling on indigency for trial
proceedings. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.
In re Lamar (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2008)(per curiam denial,
interlocutory appeal available, special appearance)
DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Per Curiam
Before Justices Taft, Jennings and Bland
01-08-00384-CV In re John and Nanci Lamar
Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon. Levi Benton
Zimmerman, MD v. Anaya (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2008)(Bland)
(HCLC, interlocutory appeal not authorized, dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Jennings and Bland
01-07-00570-CV Geoffrey Zimmerman, M.D. v. Wendy Gonzalez Anaya, Individually and a/n/f of Christopher
Gabriel Hernandez, Deceased, and Jose Hernandez, Individually
Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Patricia Hancock
Wang v. Tang (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2008)(Higley)
(interlocutory appeal, media defendant, libel, no malice)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Higley
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Keyes and Higley
01-08-00009-CV Jianguang Wang and Yellow Emperor Communications, Inc., d/b/a Houston Chinese Press
v. David Y. Tang
Appeal from 164th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Martha Hill Jamison
County of Dallas v. Sempe, No. 05-0022 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(per curiam)
(interlocutory appeal, no conflicts jurisdiction, petition ungranted)
COUNTY OF DALLAS v. CHRISTOPHER SHAWN SEMPE AND CARL RAYMOND SEMPE, SOLE HEIRS OF
CHARLES RAY SEMPE; from Dallas County; 5th district (05- 03-01603-CV, 151 SW3d 291, 12-07-04)
The Court withdraws its order of May 26, 2006, granting the petition for review, as the petition was
improvidently granted. The petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court dismisses attempted appeal from order denying Rule 2002 deposition of prospective opposing suit in
contemplated suit, holding that order was interlocutory and that no interlocutory appeal was authorized
Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, No. 05-0321 (Tex. Sep. 7, 2007)(Green)
(public employment, government entities, sovereign immunity, breach of settlement agreement, ILA,
interlocutory appeal of ruling on plea to the jurisdiction/immunity defense, opportunity to amend)
Ronald Lee Alexander v. Duer (Tex.App.- Houston [1st. Dist.] Mar. 13, 2008)(Hanks)
(Rule 202 deposition, interlocutory appeal not authorized, DWOJ)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Hanks
01-06-00256-CV Ronald Lee Alexander
Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County
Trial court judge: Hon. Levi Benton
Daniels v. State (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 21, 2008)(Bland)
(forfeiture, intervention, finality of order, interlocutory order, DWOJ)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Jennings and Bland
01-07-00120-CV Leiroi M. Daniels, Owner of the 2000 Mercedes Automobile VIN #WDBNG75J4YA39643
v. The State of Texas
Appeal from 157th District Court of Harris County (Hon. Ronald L. Wilson)
Justices disagree on construction of rules governing permissive appeal; majority holds appeal
was late and dismisses for want of jurisdiction
Inliner Americas, Inc. v. Macomb Funding Group, LLC (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2007)
(Guzman)(deadline for filing permissive interlocutory appeal)
DISMISSED: Opinion by Justice Guzman
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Guzman
14-06-01084-CV INLINER AMERICAS, INC. N/K/A FIRSTLINER AMERICAS, INC., INLINER USA, INC., N/K/A
FIRSTLINER USA, INC., and CAT CONTRACTING, INC. v. MACOMB FUNDING GROUP, L.L.C--Appeal from
127th District Court of Harris County (Hon. Sharolyn P. Wood)
Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
TDCJ v. Raymond (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 4, 2007)(Bland)
(TTCA, sovereign immunity, interlocutory appeal)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Bland
01-06-00364-CV Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Raymond Lockett
Appeal from 23rd District Court of Brazoria County (Hon. Ben Hardin)
Texas Department of Human Services v. Okoli (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist] Jun. 28, 2007)(Taft)
(WBA, sovereign immunity, DWOJ, interlocutory appeal)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Taft
Before Justices Taft, Jennings and Alcala)
01-07-00103-CV Texas Department of Human Services v. Oliver Okoli
Apeal from 61st District Court of Harris County (Trial court judge: Hon. John Donovan)
Young., M.D. and Baylor College of Medicine v. Silva Villegas (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2007,
pet. filed and briefing on merits requested)(Frost)(Health care liabiliy claim, immunity claim, interlocutory
appeal)
AFFIRMED IN PART DISMISSED IN PART: Opinion by Justice Frost
Before Justices Fowler, Edelman and Frost
14-06-00072-CV Amy Young., M.D. and Baylor College of Medicine v. Silva Villegas and Armondo
Villegas, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Mark Anthony Villegas
Appeal from 333rd District Court of Harris County (Judge Joseph J. Halbach)
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 v. 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.
Court Dismisses Appeal Because Judgment Was Not Final; Unadjudicated Claims Remained
Pending in the Trial Court, and Had Not Been Abandoned
Maryland Casualty Co. v. American Home Assurance Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 29, 2007)
(Bland)(finality of judgment, ILA DWOJ)
Sharma v. Vinmar International, No. 14-05-01088-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 25, 2007)
(Anderson) (appeal of temporary injunction accelerated, interlocutory appeals)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Anderson
Before Justices Anderson, Hudson and Guzman
14-05-01088-CV Ravin Sharma, Ashvin Dhingra, Amit Bansal, James Rew, Chemtrade Solutions, Inc., Yang
Woo Chemical America, Inc., and J& J Chemtrading v. Vinmar International, LTD
Appeal from 333rd District Court of Harris County (Judge not shown on docket)
Separate opinion in Sharma v. Vinmar International (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 25, 2007)(separate
opinion by Guzman) Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Guzman
HOUSTON CASES AND CASELAW | TEXAS APPELLATE CASELAW
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE