Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baylor College of Medicine v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2019In this connection, we have held that under the statute, we have jurisdiction to consider only the interlocutory appeal of a challenge “based on the assertion of official immunity.” Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Hernandez, 208 S.W.3d 4, 11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).4 The officers contend that there is no evidence that Boone had possession of 3 The statute states that a person may appeal from the denial of “a motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity.” Tex. Civ. 2019In this connection, we have held that under the statute, we have jurisdiction to consider only the interlocutory appeal of a challenge “based on the assertion of official immunity.” Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Hernandez, 208 S.W.3d 4, 11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).4 3 The statute states that a person may appeal from the denial of “a motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity.” Tex. Civ. | 2 | 2 |
Waite v. Waitegreen2 sentences2004See Waite v. Waite, 76 S.W.3d 222 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). 2004See Waite v. Waite , 76 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp.green2 sentences2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that "alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class." Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 26 at *2 (Tex. April 19, 2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp. , 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Frye , 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning , 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, writ dism'd.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton , 883 S. 2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that “alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class.” Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 353 (Tex.2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Fry, 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton, 883 S.W.2d 703, 707 (Tex.App.-Da | 2 | 2 |
American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Waltongreen2 sentences2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that "alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class." Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 26 at *2 (Tex. April 19, 2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp. , 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Frye , 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning , 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, writ dism'd.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton , 883 S. 2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that “alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class.” Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 353 (Tex.2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Fry, 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton, 883 S.W.2d 703, 707 (Tex.App.-Da | 2 | 2 |
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Frygreen2 sentences2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that "alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class." Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 26 at *2 (Tex. April 19, 2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp. , 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Frye , 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning , 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, writ dism'd.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton , 883 S. 2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that “alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class.” Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 353 (Tex.2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Fry, 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton, 883 S.W.2d 703, 707 (Tex.App.-Da | 2 | 2 |
Microsoft Corp. v. Manninggreen2 sentences2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that "alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class." Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 26 at *2 (Tex. April 19, 2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp. , 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Frye , 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning , 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, writ dism'd.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton , 883 S. 2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that “alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class.” Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 353 (Tex.2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Fry, 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton, 883 S.W.2d 703, 707 (Tex.App.-Da | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2010Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217 , 225–26 (Tex. 2004). 2010Tex.Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex.2004). | 1 | 2 |
cluster 377225green1 sentence2023See e.g., United States v. Martin, 620 F.2d 237 (10th Cir. 1980) (denying relief on interlocutory appeal and mandamus where a defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue). | 1 | 1 |
Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, Texasgreen2 sentences2020CODE §§ 51.014(a)(8), 101.001(3)(D). 14 Univ. of the Incarnate Word v. Redus, 518 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tex. 2017). 15 Id. 4 Having concluded the University was entitled to an interlocutory appeal, we remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider in the first instance the University’s sovereign immunity argument.16 “Whether an entity is entitled to an interlocutory appeal and whether an entity has sovereign immunity,” we stressed, “are separate questions with separate analytical frameworks.”17 The question whether the University enjoys immunity “implicate[s] principles of sovereign immunity 2020CODE §§ 51.014(a)(8), 101.001(3)(D). 14 Univ. of the Incarnate Word v. Redus, 518 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tex. 2017). 15 Id. 4 Having concluded the University was entitled to an interlocutory appeal, we remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider in the first instance the University’s sovereign immunity argument.16 “Whether an entity is entitled to an interlocutory appeal and whether an entity has sovereign immunity,” we stressed, “are separate questions with separate analytical frameworks.”17 The question whether the University enjoys immunity “implicate[s] principles of sovereign immunity | 1 | 1 |
University of the Incarnate Word v. Redusgreen2 sentences2020CODE §§ 51.014(a)(8), 101.001(3)(D). 14 Univ. of the Incarnate Word v. Redus, 518 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tex. 2017). 15 Id. 4 Having concluded the University was entitled to an interlocutory appeal, we remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider in the first instance the University’s sovereign immunity argument.16 “Whether an entity is entitled to an interlocutory appeal and whether an entity has sovereign immunity,” we stressed, “are separate questions with separate analytical frameworks.”17 The question whether the University enjoys immunity “implicate[s] principles of sovereign immunity 2020CODE §§ 51.014(a)(8), 101.001(3)(D). 14 Univ. of the Incarnate Word v. Redus, 518 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tex. 2017). 15 Id. 4 Having concluded the University was entitled to an interlocutory appeal, we remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider in the first instance the University’s sovereign immunity argument.16 “Whether an entity is entitled to an interlocutory appeal and whether an entity has sovereign immunity,” we stressed, “are separate questions with separate analytical frameworks.”17 The question whether the University enjoys immunity “implicate[s] principles of sovereign immunity | 1 | 1 |
Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivaresgreen2 sentences2020II A Sovereign immunity provides that “no state can be sued in her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that consent.”25 Sovereign immunity is “inherent” in Texas statehood and “developed without any legislative or constitutional enactment.”26 At its inception, courts premised sovereign immunity on the notion that “the King can do no wrong.”27 The rationale for immunity evolved away from this legal fiction over time, but the doctrine remains unique to governmental authority.28 Modern justifications for it include preserving executive and legislative power fr 2020II A Sovereign immunity provides that “no state can be sued in her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that consent.”25 Sovereign immunity is “inherent” in Texas statehood and “developed without any legislative or constitutional enactment.”26 At its inception, courts premised sovereign immunity on the notion that “the King can do no wrong.”27 The rationale for immunity evolved away from this legal fiction over time, but the doctrine remains unique to governmental authority.28 Modern justifications for it include preserving executive and legislative power fr | 1 | 1 |
Hosner v. DeYounggreen1 sentence2020II A Sovereign immunity provides that “no state can be sued in her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that consent.”25 Sovereign immunity is “inherent” in Texas statehood and “developed without any legislative or constitutional enactment.”26 At its inception, courts premised sovereign immunity on the notion that “the King can do no wrong.”27 The rationale for immunity evolved away from this legal fiction over time, but the doctrine remains unique to governmental authority.28 Modern justifications for it include preserving executive and legislative power fr | 1 | 1 |
the City of Houston v. the Estate of Kenneth Samuel Jonesgreen1 sentence2013See City of Houston v. Estate of Jones, 388 S.W.3d 663, 666 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam); Tex. A & M Univ. | 1 | 1 |
Mikey's Houses LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.green2 sentences2009See Mikey's Houses, 232 S.W.3d at 148 (explaining issue was raised via permissive interlocutory appeal); see also Tex.R.App. 2009See Mikey’s Houses, 232 S.W.3d at 148 (explaining issue was raised via permissive interlocutory appeal); see also Tex.R.App. | 1 | 1 |
Russ Berrie and Co., Inc. v. Ganttgreen1 sentence2005See Russ Berrie & Co., Inc. v. Gantt, 998 S.W.2d 713, 714-15 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.)(a party seeking enforcement of an arbitration agreement under the FAA must pursue mandamus relief, whereas a party asserting a right to arbitration under the TGAA may seek relief through an interlocutory appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2001The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to an interlocutory appeal under this rule extends to any order that “alter[s] the fundamental nature of the class.” Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 353 (Tex.2001) (citing to the rule in De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.1996)); see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Fry, 27 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christ 2000, no pet.); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d.); American Express Travel Related Services v. Walton, 883 S.W.2d 703, 707 (Tex.App.-Da | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Long
green
1 sentence2006Thomas filed a notice of an interlocutory appeal to challenge the court’s “denial of his Plea to the Jurisdiction signed by [the trial court] on March 4, 2002.” Thomas’s notice also acknowledged that his “appeal includes all three of the orders signed by the Court on March 4, 2002 since all three orders relate to [Thomas’s] dispute as to [the trial court’s] jurisdiction.” The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that “because our record does not contain an order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction, and because section 51.014(a) does not include | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.