denial of a jurisdictional challenge in Texas

2023See Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. 2006) (“To be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.”); see also Lazarides v. Farris, 367 S.W.3d 788 , 796–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (concluding when record includes order denying motion including challenge to trial court’s jurisdiction, interlocutory appeal may be taken, irrespective of chosen procedural vehicle).

2022See Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. 2006) (“The Legislature provided for an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies a governmental unit’s challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, irrespective of the procedural vehicle used.… To be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.”); see also Tex. Civ.

2012Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO, 338 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (stating that court “do[es] not have jurisdiction to consider grounds outside those raised in the plea to the jurisdiction”); City of Houston v. Atser, L.P., No. 01-10-00240-CV, 2012 WL 1143477 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 5, 2012, no. pet. h.) (mem. op.) (“In order for a party to be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.”); see also City of Seabrook v. Port of Houston Auth., 199 S.W.3d 403, 437 (Tex. App.—

2012Fed’n of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO, 338 S.W.3d 709 , 713 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (stating that court "do[es] not have jurisdiction to consider grounds outside those raised in the plea to the jurisdiction”); City of Houston v. Atser, L.P., No. 01-10-00240-CV, 2012 WL 1143477 , at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 5, 2012, no. pet. h.) (mem. op.) (“In order for a party to be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.”); see also City of Seabrook v. Port of Houston Auth., 199 S.W.3d 403, 437 (Tex.App.-Ho

2012Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO, 338 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (stating that court “do[es] not have jurisdiction to consider grounds outside those raised in the plea to the jurisdiction”); City of Houston v. Atser, L.P., No. 01-10-00240-CV, 2012 WL 1143477 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 5, 2012, no. pet. h.) (mem. op.) (“In order for a party to be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.”); see also City of Seabrook v. Port of Houston Auth., 199 S.W.3d 403, 437 (Tex. App.—

2012Fed’n of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO, 338 S.W.3d 709 , 713 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (stating that court "do[es] not have jurisdiction to consider grounds outside those raised in the plea to the jurisdiction”); City of Houston v. Atser, L.P., No. 01-10-00240-CV, 2012 WL 1143477 , at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 5, 2012, no. pet. h.) (mem. op.) (“In order for a party to be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.”); see also City of Seabrook v. Port of Houston Auth., 199 S.W.3d 403, 437 (Tex.App.-Ho

2023See Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. 2006) (“To be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge.”); see also Lazarides v. Farris, 367 S.W.3d 788 , 796–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (concluding when record includes order denying motion including challenge to trial court’s jurisdiction, interlocutory appeal may be taken, irrespective of chosen procedural vehicle).

2017Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows an appeal from an interlocutory order that "grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit[.]" Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex. 2004).

2015In other words, interlocutory appealability is not “constrained by the form or caption of a pleading.” Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (cited in Thomas, 207 S.W.3d at 339 ).

2015See City of Houston, 403 S.W.3d at 357 (explaining that “[i]n order for a party to be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge”); see also Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004) (explaining that an interlocutory appeal may be taken when a governmental entity’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied, but if the court grants the motion, the plaintiff may take an appeal once that judgment becomes final).

2015See City of Houston, 403 S.W.3d at 357 (explaining that “[i]n order for a party to be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the denial of a jurisdictional challenge”); see also Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004) (explaining that an interlocutory appeal may be taken when a governmental entity’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied, but if the court grants the motion, the plaintiff may take an appeal once that judgment becomes final).

2012Dist. v. Valco Instruments Co., L.P., No. 01-11-00164-CV, 2012 WL 761215 , at 6 Fourteenth has agreed in at least two of its cases.20 Additionally, the San Antonio court has questioned its precedent on this issue in light of our position,21 and the Austin22 and Dallas23 courts have both distinguished certain cases from their own precedent on this issue. *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 8, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (holding that court did not have interlocutory jurisdiction over merits-based summary judgment arguments). 20 See Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Esters, 343 S.W.3d 226, 233 (Tex.