Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment resolving only some claims and parties.

Blum v. Sommer · filed 2025-08-21

An interlocutory order granting a motion for summary judgment of some, but not all, claims and parties in a lawsuit has not been specifically designated as an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a)(17) permits either side to seek interlocutory review of an order granting or denying summary judgment based on highway contractor immunity under section 97.002.

In Re Webber, LLC v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-08-15(a)(17)

As we have noted, Webber is entitled to seek interlocutory appellate review should the trial court deny its summary-judgment motion. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(17). Likewise, the other parties are entitled to seek interlocutory review if the trial court grants Webber’s summary-judgment motion. Id.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss.

Jones v. Bellum Civile, LLC · filed 2025-07-24

The Texas Legislature has not designated an order granting a motion to dismiss under Rule of Civil Procedure 91a as an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a ruling on an objection to the admission of evidence.

Enriquez v. Dale Wainwright, Chairman Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Dep · filed 2025-06-06

A ruling on an objection to the admission of evidence is not subject to interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the first phase of a bifurcated trial.

VanBuren v. Urban · filed 2024-10-24

In particular, when a trial court has granted separate trials, as opposed to a severance, “separate trials are interlocutory, and are not final and appealable until all the separated claims and issues in the suit have been litigated.” Van Dyke v. Boswell, O’Toole, Davis & Pickering, 697 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Tex. 1985); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of various interlocutory orders but not permitting appeal from first phase of bifurcated trial).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment resolving only some claims and parties.

Bolton v. 3121 Brewster. LLC · filed 2024-08-29

Further, an interlocutory order granting a motion for summary judgment of some, but not all claims and parties in a lawsuit, has not been specifically designated by the Legislature as an appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for default judgment.

Kerns v. Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association Board of Directors · filed 2024-08-15

Nor is such an order subject to interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2023) (appeal from interlocutory order).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to compel discovery.

D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc. v. Cementos Ready-Mix, LLC · filed 2024-06-07

In its entirety, however, no provision of § 51.014 permits an interlocutory appeal from a motion to compel discovery.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling discovery.

D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc. v. Cementos Ready-Mix, LLC · filed 2024-07-26

None of § 51.014’s provisions expressly permit an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling discovery.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order concerning a statement of inability to pay costs.

Emerson Jr. v. Holly Lake Ranch Association, Brian South, Rodney Duplechain, Dennis Dossey, Dan Ouimet, Belind · filed 2024-01-03

Nor is such an order subject to interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2023) (appeal from interlocutory order).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from every order denying summary judgment.

Philip J. Emerson, Jr. v. Holly Lake Ranch Association, Inc. · filed 2024-01-03

Nor is the interlocutory appeal of the denial of summary judgment in this case authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2023) (appeal from interlocutory order).

Section 51.014 does not generally authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying summary judgment.

Emerson Jr. v. Parker · filed 2024-01-03

Nor is the denial of summary judgment in this case authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2023) (appeal from interlocutory order).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment granted for only one of multiple defendants.

Royal v. MB Landscape Solutions, Individually and Jointly Baldemar Arias, Individually and Jointly Unnamed MB La · filed 2023-09-29

In this case, the trial court’s order only disposes of Royal’s claims against one defendant, and an order granting summary judgment in favor of only one of multiple defendants is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an appeal from an order denying a motion to amend a judgment, appoint counsel, or appoint a special master.

Phillips v. Sugar Creek Apartments · filed 2023-07-13(a)

No statute authorizes an appeal from an order denying a motion to amend a judgment, denying a motion to appoint counsel, or denying a motion to appoint a special master.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order transferring a case under local court rules.

Johnson v. 1910 Pacific, L.P. · filed 2023-07-11(a)

A transfer order pursuant to local rules is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order for which an appeal is authorized by statute.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s ruling on special exceptions.

David Edward Saucedo, II and Mariana Terrazas Saucedo, Individually and on Behalf of I. S., a Minor Child v. El Paso Chi · filed 2023-04-24(a)

Second, as for special exceptions, a trial court’s ruling is not subject to review by interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a); see also Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Adam, 56 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (stating trial court’s rulings on special exceptions are not subject to review by interlocutory appeal).

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order striking a plea in intervention.

HomeTown Bank, N.A. v. the City of Texas City, Texas · filed 2022-12-08(a)(4)

A person may not use an appeal under section 51.014(a)(4) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code as a vehicle for obtaining an interlocutory appeal of other non-appealable rulings.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order requiring parties to attend mediation.

Ran Li v. Li · filed 2022-11-10(a)(4)

The trial court’s order does not grant or refuse a temporary injunction nor does it grant or overrule a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. Instead, the order requires the parties to appear at mediation; such an order is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order expunging a lis pendens.

Hernandez v. Preston Brown, Valentina Samaniego, Odd Couple Properties, LLC , Crusades Realty Investment · filed 2022-10-26

There is no final judgment in this case, and we find no statutory authority for an appeal of an interlocutory order expunging lis pendens.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order transferring a case under local court rules.

Chuan Chen and M. Tayari Garrett v. Deborah Lushia, 5335 Bent Tree Forest Drive Condominiums Homeowner's Association Inc · filed 2022-10-07(a)

A transfer order pursuant to local rules is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order for which an appeal is authorized by statute.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of a special-exceptions ruling.

Jerald H. Miller, Jr. v. Tarrant County Appraisal District, Tarrant County Review Board, Tarrant County, the City of For · filed 2022-10-06(a)

Special-exceptions rulings are not subject to review by interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(12) does not apply to interlocutory appeals in criminal proceedings.

McComb v. the State of Texas · filed 2022-09-20(a)(12)

Because this is a criminal matter, not civil, section 51.014(a)(12) of the civil practice and remedies code does not apply to this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(8) applies to interlocutory orders granting or denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction, but not to final judgments disposing of all parties and claims.

AIM Media Texas, LLC D/B/A the Odessa American v. City of Odessa, Texas · filed 2022-08-25(a)(8)

The order from which AIM appeals is a final judgment that disposes of all parties and all claims; it is not an interlocutory order. Therefore, neither Section 51.014(a)(8) nor the appellate rules regarding the time in which to file a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order are applicable in this case.

Section 51.014(a)(15) permits a contractor to appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion based on Section 97.002, including the denial as to breach of contract and concert of action claims.

ISI Contracting, Inc. and Guerra Construction v. Naomi Markham, Carrie Markham, and Trevor Markham, Individually and as · filed 2022-04-27(a)(15)

Section 51.014 authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order that “grants or denies a motion for summary judgment filed by a contractor based on Section 97.002.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(15). The record conclusively establishes that in their respective motions, ISI and Guerra each moved for summary judgment against all the Markhams’ claims based on immunity from liability under section 97.002, and the trial court denied their motions. Thus, ISI and Guerra met the statutory requirements to appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment on the Markhams’ breach of contract and concert of action claims.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order of nonsuit.

Dingler v. Studio 6 · filed 2021-11-10

... no statute authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order of nonsuit.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment granted to only one of multiple defendants.

Broadway v. Lean on 8, Inc. D/B/A Chick-Fil-A of Kyle · filed 2021-09-23

In this case, the trial court’s order only disposes of Broadway’s claims against one defendant, and an order granting summary judgment in favor of only one of multiple defendants is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a prior post-judgment order.

Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC v. Harris County, Harris County Department of Education, Port of Houston Authorit · filed 2021-08-10

Rushmore does not point to any statutory authority showing our appellate jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to vacate a prior post-judgment order. Neither the Tax Code nor section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which governs appeals from interlocutory orders, authorizes appellate courts to review such an order.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a Rule 91a motion to dismiss.

in Re Shire PLC, Baxter International Inc., Baxalta Incorporated, and ViroPharma Inc. · filed 2021-08-06

Thus, the denial of a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not a final, appealable order, and it is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014.

Section 51.014’s exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals are construed narrowly.

TPCO America Corp. v. Castillo Jr. · filed 2021-04-29(d)

The legislature has authorized interlocutory appeals in certain exceptional circumstances, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014, but we construe those exceptions narrowly. ... Having considered the petition, response, and reply, we deny the petition.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order setting a trial date in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship.

Davis v. Lopez · filed 2015-10-20

However, to the extent that the trial court entered the order as claimed in Davis’s notice of appeal, the order is not a final judgment and an interlocutory appeal of the order is not authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014; Bison Bldg. Materials, 422 S.W.3d at 585.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to appoint an attorney in a civil case.

Read v. Verboski · filed 2015-06-12(a)

Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and from specific types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2015). ... The order that Read attempts to appeal is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a) is a limited exception to the final judgment rule and is strictly construed.

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly C · filed 2015-02-23(a)

Because section 51.014(a) is a limited exception to the general rule that a party may appeal only from final judgments or orders, it is strictly construed.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order setting aside a judgment in a bill of review proceeding.

Mihailovich v. Jewell · filed 2009-10-14

The trial court's order setting aside its judgment of November 12, 2008, does not dispose of all parties and issues in the case, nor does it fall within the limited class of appealable, interlocutory orders identified in section 51.014.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s ruling on a motion to recuse.

Ex Parte Gregory Dean Banister · filed 2009-07-07(a)

Otherwise, the appeal is interlocutory and this Court is without jurisdiction to review the decision except for those statutory exceptions permitting interlocutory appeals. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008). A trial court’s ruling on a motion to recuse does not fall within one of those exceptions.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order declaring a person a vexatious litigant or restricting that person's filing of new litigation.

Pandozy v. Beaty · filed 2008-05-02

There is no provision in Section 51.014 authorizing an appeal of an order which declares a person a vexatious litigant, or of an order prohibiting a person from filing new litigation without permission of the local administrative judge.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a judge’s refusal to recuse or a trial court’s failure to consider a motion to disqualify.

Rhett Webster Pease v. Texas Attorney General and Janell Pease · filed 2008-03-20

No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a judge’s refusal to recuse or from a trial court’s failure to consider a motion to disqualify. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2007) (providing for appeal from certain interlocutory orders).

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order imposing sanctions against an attorney.

Irvin v. Vandergrift · filed 2008-03-20(a)

Accordingly, because the order dated February 6, 2008, is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, (footnote: 3) we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling payment of previously awarded attorney's fees.

William Alexander Roper, Jr. v. Reagan, Burrus, Dierksen, Lamon & Bluntzer PLLC · filed 2008-03-18(a)

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an appeal from an interlocutory order compelling payment of previously awarded attorney's fees.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order severing claims.

Lynd v. Northwood MHC, L.P. D/B/A Northwood and City of Lewisville/Lewisville Police Department · filed 2008-02-21(a)

The order from which appellant appeals is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order for which an appeal is authorized by statute.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order discharging a bank from an interpleader action when the order falls outside the statute’s listed categories.

K & S Interests, Inc. v. Texas American Bank/Dallas · filed 1988-04-06

Furthermore, the January 27, 1987, order is not made appealable by statute. The order is not one that (1) appoints a receiver or trustee, (2) overrules a motion to vacate an order that appoints a receiver or trustee, (3) certifies or refuses to certify a class or (4) grants or refuses or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann., § 51.014 (Vernon 1986). For this reason also, we conclude that the January 27, 1987, order is non-appealable.

Section 51.014 permits an interlocutory appeal from an order removing lis pendens only if the order qualifies as a temporary injunction.

Khraish v. Hamed · filed 1988-11-23

Thus, in order to be appealable as an interlocutory order, the order from which Khraish appeals must be characterized as a temporary injunction. ... Because the notices of lis pendens filed on the Collin County property do not comply with section 12.007 and are, therefore, void, the trial court's order cannot be said to contain elements of a temporary injunction. Thus, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a plea in abatement and a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration.

Batton v. Green · filed 1990-12-14

We conclude that the order is not within the interlocutory orders made appealable by Section 51.-014 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014 does not make an order dismissing an appeal from a family law master's findings to the referring court appealable.

Wilson v. the Attorney General of Texas · filed 1995-09-13

Neither the provisions governing the procedures relating to a family law master nor the general provision governing interlocutory appeals makes an order dismissing an appeal from the master's findings to the referring court appealable. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 54.012(j); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 1995).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from the order denying these pretrial motions.

Robinson v. Town North Mitsubishi, General Manager Randy M. Ross, and Former Sales Manager Joe West · filed 1996-07-17

Additionally, this is not the type of interlocutory order that may be appealed.

Section 51.014 does not allow an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a default judgment.

Marklinger v. Marklinger · filed 1997-04-02

A denial of a default judgment does not fall within the parameters for interlocutory review under Section 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling arbitration.

Gathe v. Cigna Healthplan of Texas, Inc. · filed 1994-06-16

The general Texas statute permitting appeal of interlocutory orders does not include an order compelling arbitration as one of those that may be appealed.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order overruling a plea to the jurisdiction.

James and Donna Russell v. David and Leta Stokes · filed 1996-07-03

Appellants attempted to perfect appeal from an order which is neither final nor subject to interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal and will dismiss it. See North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 1996).

Section 51.014(a)(1) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order appointing a receiver even when the receiver's authority is stayed until specified conditions occur.

Dayton Reavis Corporation v. Rampart Capital Corporation · filed 1998-03-04(a)(1)

We carefully reviewed the order and determined that it was an "order appointing a receiver." ... All of the terms and conditions of the receivership were set forth in the order. Thus, we concluded that it was an appealable interlocutory order and denied the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a bill of review.

Ott v. Files · filed 2000-11-09

The granting of a bill of review is not among the appealable interlocutory decisions.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order of abatement.

Yu v. Neely · filed 2001-05-31

An order of abatement is not such an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order on a plea in abatement or a motion for sanctions.

Bailey v. Longview Independent School District · filed 2001-10-02

Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remdies Code lists those interlocutory orders from which an appeal may be taken. As LISD points out, neither an order on a plea in abatement nor an order on a motion for sanctions are among those orders contained in section 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not permit interlocutory appeals from orders denying declaratory judgments or awarding attorney's fees.

Waite v. Waite · filed 2001-11-21(a)

However, neither interlocutory orders denying declaratory judgments, nor interlocutory attorneys' fee awards are appealable.

Section 51.014 does not list rulings on motions to transfer venue among the orders subject to interlocutory appeal.

Dorite Electrical and James R. Handy v. Elliott Electrical Supply, Inc. · filed 2001-11-28

A ruling on a motion to transfer venue is not one of those orders listed in section 51.014 as being subject to interlocutory appeal.

Subsections (a)(5) and (a)(6) permit interlocutory appeals from denials of summary judgment based on a governmental official’s or employee’s immunity or a media defendant’s First Amendment defense; a motion based on neither ground is not appealable under those provisions.

City of Edinburg v. Garces · filed 2002-01-24(a)(5), (a)(6)

We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion for summary judgment if the motion was based on an assertion of immunity by a governmental official or employee, (2) or if it was based on a First Amendment defense by a member of the electronic or print media. (3) Because the City's motion for summary judgment was not based on either one of these issues, we conclude we are without jurisdiction to address the City's second issue.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order on a motion to show authority to act.

William Pena, as Next Friend in Behalf of Wallace Starrett v. Johnson · filed 2002-03-20

Section 51.014 lists various appealable interlocutory orders. An order on a motion to show authority to act is not one of those listed in section 51.014.

Section 51.014(a)(8) allows a governmental unit to appeal an order denying its plea to the jurisdiction, but does not provide for an interlocutory appeal from denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Liberty County, Texas and James Louis Buchanan v. James Seidel, Angela Seidel, Cheri Varnado and Tarah Land · filed 2002-05-09(a)(8)

Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows interlocutory appeal from denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit and does not refer to denial of a governmental unit's motion for summary judgment.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order setting a case for trial.

Sontchi, Michael v. Jenny Rich · filed 2002-06-13

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See North East Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge , 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966) ( an appeal may only be prosecuted from a final judgment ); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2002) (not including trial setting orders among the matters that may be the subject of interlocutory appeals); Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) (after giving 10 days' notice to all parties, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order postponing hearings on motions until lower or administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Loye Dee (L. D.) Pitts v. State of Texas · filed 2002-10-23

In the order that is the subject of this appeal, the county civil court at law ordered that it would hold no more hearings on interlocutory motions filed by Pitts until all lower or administrative remedies available had been exhausted. ... The Legislature has also authorized the appeal of a number of interlocutory orders. See, e.g. , Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2002). An order of this nature does not fall within the bounds of any type of order which may be appealed.

Section 51.014(a)(1) and (a)(4) permit interlocutory appeals from orders appointing a receiver and granting a temporary injunction, respectively.

Bass v. Bass · filed 2003-05-01(a)(1), (a)(4)

This challenge ignores that sections 51.014(a)(4) and (1) confer jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders for temporary injunction and orders appointing a receiver.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a trial court's entry of findings of fact.

H2O Plumbling, Inc., (APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE) v. Capital Industries, Inc., (APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT) · filed 2003-05-28

No statute permits the interlocutory appeal of a trial court's entry of findings of facts. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2003) (describing appealable interlocutory orders in civil cases).

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction; it does not by itself permit review of an accompanying summary judgment.

Warren R Cozby and Lillian a Cozby v. the City of Waco, Texas, Jointly and Severally · filed 2002-12-04(a)(8)

Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code gives this Court jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a governmental unit. ... However, we do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order which grants or denies a summary judgment motion filed by a governmental unit, unless the governmental unit sought a summary judgment “based on” its employee’s qualified or official immunity.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from the order on a motion to vacate a final judgment.

in the Matter of the Marriage of Kerry Nathan Parker and Rana Roxanne Parker · filed 2003-06-03

The Legislature has also authorized the appeal of a number of interlocutory orders. See, e.g. , Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. The complained-of order here does not fall within either category.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order finding that a common law marriage exists.

Arnold v. Arnold · filed 2003-10-02

In addition, the order does not fall within one of the categories of appealable interlocutory orders under section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code.

Section 51.014 permits an accelerated appeal only from the types of interlocutory orders it lists.

Investment Performance Corporation v. Herbert Richardson and John E. Gilmore · filed 2003-06-26

Because the December 10, 1999 order is not the type of order listed under section 51.014, Kaminetzky had no right of accelerated appeal from the order and his argument is without merit.

Section 51.014 does not permit interlocutory review of an order refusing to dismiss or abate a case because another court allegedly has exclusive jurisdiction.

Lamar County Electric Cooperative Association and Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Rayburn Country Electric Cooper · filed 2004-02-10

Appellee argues, and we agree, that this issue may not be raised in an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a judgment on an unsevered intervention claim while the divorce action remains pending.

Local Telecom Service, L.L.C. v. Jolene Marie Forsberg and John Joseph Forsberg · filed 2004-03-18

In addition, the judgment does not fall within one of the categories of appealable interlocutory orders under section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal from a ruling on a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction, but does not authorize an appeal from a transfer order.

State v. Fernandez · filed 2004-06-16(a)(8)

Appellant states it brings this appeal pursuant to section 51.014(a)(8) of the civil practices and remedies code. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon Supp.2004). That section gives us authority to review an appeal from an interlocutory order that "grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit as that term is defined in Section 101.001." Id. ... In effect, appellant is attempting to appeal from the orders transferring the three bills of review pursuant to section 5B of the probate code, not from rulings on pleas to the jurisdiction. Because we do not have statutory authority to consider an interlocutory appeal from a transfer order, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to compel discovery.

Rudder v. Hannah · filed 2004-05-27

The denial of a motion to compel discovery may be challenged by a petition for mandamus, (footnote: 2) but it is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order referring a case to mediation.

Banc of America Investment Services, Inc., Michael Degolier, and Terry Johnson v. Lancaster · filed 2004-08-24

Appellants are attempting to appeal the trial court’s “Order of Referral to Mediation.” ... See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05) (listing types of interlocutory orders that are appealable), §§ 154.021-.022 (Vernon 1997), § 154.023 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). ... Because the complained-of order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying appointed counsel in a suit seeking conservatorship and child support orders.

in the Interest of S.L.K., a Minor Child · filed 2004-10-21

No statute provides this court with jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal of an order denying appointed counsel in this case seeking orders of conservatorship and child support.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a venue clause.

Equity Trust Company and Mid-Ohio Securities Corp. v. Hebert · filed 2004-11-04

Appellants' interlocutory appeal includes an issue on the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss based on a venue clause in the IRA agreement. We do not have jurisdiction to address this issue. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plaintiff’s summary judgment motion under these circumstances.

Wolf v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division James Cleveland Brown · filed 2005-01-06

Because an appeal from a denial of a motion for summary judgment under these circumstances is not permitted under the statute, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a determination that nonlawyer corporate officers cannot represent the corporation.

Ican Enterprise, Inc. Dba Ican Aviation, Michael Zucker, President, and Naomi Zucker, Vice President v. Williamson Count · filed 2005-01-12

The trial court's decision is not one from which interlocutory appeal is permitted, and further there is no signed, written order from which appeal may be taken.

Section 51.014 does not permit interlocutory appeals from orders denying appointed counsel or granting protective orders in a pending divorce action.

Rocha v. Rocha · filed 2005-02-08

Denials of requests for appointed counsel in divorce actions and grants of protective orders in divorce actions are not among the orders from which an interlocutory appeal may be taken.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying recusal or imposing sanctions on a vexatious litigant.

Phillips v. Linda v. Phillips · filed 2004-12-16(a)

There is no specific statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to recuse or from an order imposing sanctions on a vexatious litigant. Neither is set out in the statutes authorizing interlocutory appeals.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order issuing a writ of sequestration.

Chandler S. Swain v. American Honda Finance Corporation · filed 2005-03-17

On February 23, 2005, we notified Appellant Chandler S. Swain, in accordance with Rule 42.3(a), that this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court’s August 20, 2004 “Order For Issuance Of Writ Of Sequestration.” ... Further, the order that Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of a transfer order.

Fox v. Joe Wardy, Mayor, Susan Austin, Jose A. Lozano, John F. Cook, Daniel S. Power, Paul J. Escobar, Vivian Rojas · filed 2005-07-28

Further, Section 51.014 does not authorize the interlocutory appeal of a transfer order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order appointing a master in chancery.

Moyer v. Moyer · filed 2005-08-17

The legislature has declared that only certain narrow issues may be brought by interlocutory appeal, and, in contrast to the receivership issues addressed previously, an order appointing a master in chancery is not one of them.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause.

Prosperous Maritime Corp. v. Farwah · filed 2006-03-30(a)

Further, a court's denying a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause is not within one of the ten listed situations in which the legislature gave a party the right to pursue an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve a writ of sequestration.

Benbrooke Wedgewood Partners, L.P. v. Southwest Bank · filed 2006-04-27

Further, the order that Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize interlocutory appeals from orders sustaining a contest to indigence, finding a party vexatious, or requiring a bond to keep a case on the docket.

in Re Janet Kennedy and Alamo Ranch, Inc. · filed 2006-05-05

Kennedy filed her notice of appeal, seeking to bring an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's orders (1) sustaining appellee's contest, (2) finding that Kennedy is a vexatious litigant, and (3) requiring her to post bond to keep her case on the docket. However, such orders are not properly made the subject of an interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2005).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order finding a litigant vexatious.

Janet Kennedy and Alamo Ranch, Inc. v. Bobby Joe Kennedy, Clayton Crenwelge and Betty Crenwelge · filed 2006-05-12

A trial court’s order finding that a litigant is a vexatious litigant is not properly made the subject of an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to amend a plaintiff's petition.

Lopez v. Rupert · filed 2005-10-07

This Court has jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders only in limited circumstances. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005). The appeal of a trial court's denial of a motion to amend a plaintiff's petition is not an interlocutory order over which this Court has been granted jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from orders requiring paternity testing or releasing the test results.

in Re Attorney General of Texas · filed 2006-08-03

Additionally, there is no basis for an appeal of the trial court's interlocutory orders to perform paternity testing and to release the results of such testing. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2005).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order confirming in part and vacating in part an arbitration award.

Bison Building Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge · filed 2006-09-14(a)

The general Texas statute permitting appeals from interlocutory orders does not include an order confirming in part and vacating in part an arbitration award as one of those interlocutory trial court orders from which a party may appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a biennial review order in a sexually violent predator commitment.

In Re Commitment of Richards · filed 2006-09-14

The Legislature has not included biennial review orders among the types of interlocutory orders over which we have jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not include sexually violent predator biennial review orders among appealable interlocutory orders.

in Re Commitment of James Ricky Richards · filed 2006-09-14

The Legislature has not included biennial review orders among the types of interlocutory orders over which we have jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2006).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss based on inadequacies in a section 74.351 expert report.

Roberto Diaz-Rohena, M.D. v. Melton · filed 2007-01-25

This court recently held that we lacked jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss based on the inadequacies of a section 74.351 expert report because such an order is not appealable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014 and no other statute gives us jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal concerning a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction, but not an appeal from an order granting individual employees’ motion to dismiss under section 101.106(e).

Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams · filed 2007-02-01(a)(8)

Although the trial court’s denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction is an appealable, interlocutory order under section 51.014(a)(8) of the civil practice and remedies code, the trial court’s granting of the individual appellees’ motion to dismiss under section 101.106(e) is not.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a continuance and delaying a trial setting.

Kim v. Austin Community College · filed 2007-07-06

An appeal from a trial court's granting of a motion for continuance and delay of a trial setting may not be reviewed by interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order staying arbitration proceedings on res judicata grounds.

in Re W. Dow Hamm, III Corporation and W. Dow Hamm, III · filed 2007-07-12(a)

The order of which the Hamm parties complain is an interlocutory one granting a stay of arbitration proceedings on the basis of res judicata. That is not an interlocutory order for which the TAA or other Texas statute gives the right of interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying discovery.

Sharma v. Vinmar International, Ltd. · filed 2007-07-26

As section 51.014 does not expressly provide for the interlocutory appeal of an order denying discovery, we are without jurisdiction to consider this part of the Rew appellants’ third issue.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for default judgment.

Lorenz v. Texas Workforce Commission and Wal-Mart Associates Inc. · filed 2007-07-18

The trial court's order denying Lorenz's motion for a default judgment does not dispose of all issues and parties in the case and is not an order subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2006).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order disapproving an affidavit of indigency.

Foster v. Comal County Sheriff · filed 2007-08-31

While the disapproval of an affidavit of indigency may be challenged following a trial court's final disposition of a plaintiff's claim, such orders are not among the trial court rulings that are subject to interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a) permits interlocutory appeals only for specified categories of orders; an order dismissing claims against one defendant while leaving claims against others unresolved is not among them.

Hall v. Harris County, Texas Mary Bacon, Denise Crawford and Terrance Windham · filed 2007-10-17(a)

The relevant statute only authorizes the appeal of certain categories of interlocutory orders, and Hall’s ... order does not fit within any of them. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2006).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order overruling objections to an expert’s qualifications.

Barber v. Dean · filed 2007-12-20

Mercer argues that we have jurisdiction to consider his “limited interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of his objections” to the Barbers’ expert’s qualifications; however, this matter is not listed in section 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying appointed counsel.

James Earl Crayton, Sr. v. Crisp · filed 2007-12-21

No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for appointed counsel.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal of a sanctions order.

Robson v. Garrett Gilbreath and David Gilbreath · filed 2007-08-09

A sanctions order is not among the trial court rulings that is subject to interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a sanctions order.

Heugatter Jr. v. State · filed 2007-08-09

A sanctions order is not among the trial court rulings that is subject to interlocutory appeal. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2006).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to compel discovery.

Lynd v. Northwood MHC, L.P. D/B/A Northwood · filed 2008-02-28

Appellant filed a response indicating that he was not trying to appeal from the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction but, rather, the trial court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery from appellee. ... Regardless, we do not have jurisdiction over appeals from such interlocutory orders.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling production or denying a motion to quash.

Beauty Signature Group, LLC v. Farouk Systems, Inc. · filed 2008-03-28

No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling production or an order denying a motion to quash. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2007) (providing for appeal from certain interlocutory orders).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss an expedited foreclosure proceeding.

Philip O. Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata v. Washington Mutual Bank · filed 2008-05-20(a)

The legislature has not given us jurisdiction over an order denying a motion to dismiss an expedited foreclosure proceeding.

Section 51.014 permits interlocutory appeals from orders appointing receivers or granting temporary injunctions, but not from orders granting leave to file a quo warranto information.

Benefield v. State of Texas · filed 2008-08-14(a)(1), (4)

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows for an appeal from an interlocutory order that appoints a receiver or grants a temporary injunction. ... An order granting leave to file “an information in the nature of a quo warranto” is not included in the statute affording interlocutory appeals.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under Section 74.351(b).

in Re: Efrain Rivera, M. D. · filed 2008-08-28(a)(9)

Interpreting the statute according to its plain meaning, Section 51.014(a)(9) expressly provides a right to appeal an interlocutory order that denies a motion to dismiss brought under Section 74.351(b).

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order directing the parties to amend their pleadings.

in the Interest of E.F., a Child · filed 2008-09-25(a)

Appellant Harry Matthew F. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order, which ordered the parties to amend their pleadings. ... Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to transfer a criminal case from justice court to district court.

Kriegel v. Parmer County Sheriff's Office · filed 2008-10-31(a)

The legislature has not authorized the interlocutory appeal of an order denying the transfer Kriegel sought.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying an application for a protective order.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2008-11-05(a)

But the interlocutory order in this case is not the type of order that the legislature has provided specific statutory authority for us to review. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a). Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to review the trial court's order denying Susana's application for a protective order.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of inability to pay trial-court filing fees and costs.

Kossie v. Smith · filed 2009-03-09(a)

The January 7, 2008 interlocutory order from which appellant has appealed is not an order that is made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008). We thus lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory indigency order that Kossie has appealed.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to a prejudgment affidavit of indigence.

Kasnter v. State · filed 2009-05-07(a)

The October 3, 2008 interlocutory order from which appellant has appealed is not an order that is made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a bill of review.

Rapid Settlements Ltd v. Allstate Life Insurance · filed 2009-05-08(a)

Generally speaking, therefore, orders granting a bill of review are “‘not a final judgment appealable to the court of appeals . . . .’” Id. (quoting Tesoro Petroleum , 796 S.W.2d at 705); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008) (not listing, among interlocutory orders subject to appeal, orders granting bills of review).

Section 51.014(a)(8) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction; a continuance for jurisdictional discovery is not such an order.

Brazos Valley MHMR v. Taylor · filed 2009-05-13(a)(8)

Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. ... Furthermore, neither a discovery order nor an order granting a continuance is an interlocutory order subject to immediate appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a nonjurisdictional post-suit notice requirement.

El Paso County v. Alvarado · filed 2009-06-24(a)(8)

Having found that Section 89.0041 is not jurisdictional, the trial court did not err in denying the Plea to the Jurisdiction. Further, this Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to review the Motion to Dismiss.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing some, but not all, defendants under Chapter 14.

Hickman-Bey v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division · filed 2009-07-22

An order dismissing some, but not all, defendants under Chapter 14 is not authorized for interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve prejudgment writs of garnishment.

MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc. · filed 2009-07-23

Interlocutory orders are not appealable unless they fall within the exceptions provided by the legislature in section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code. 4 None of those exceptions apply here.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve prejudgment writs of garnishment.

Vasquez v. State · filed 2009-07-23

Appellants MRI Country Bend Investment Fund, L.P. and MRI River Glen Investment Fund, L.P. attempt to appeal from the trial court’s May 7, 2009, order denying their motion to dissolve pre-judgment writs of garnishment. ... Interlocutory orders are not appealable unless they fall within the exceptions provided by the legislature in section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code. (footnote: 4) None of those exceptions apply here.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to disqualify.

Malik v. Thomas Slone and Michael Meyer · filed 2009-08-20(a)

Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order stating that procedural rules apply to a pre-suit deposition.

Harvey Leroy Sossamon, III v. Brad Livingston, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2009-10-15

A trial court's order stating that the applicable procedural rules shall apply to a pre-suit deposition is not an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under section 101.106 of the Texas Tort Claims Act.

City of Arlington, Texas and Alison Turner v. Randall · filed 2009-12-10(a)(5)

Section 51.014(a)(5) has been construed, however, as providing for interlocutory appeals not only from the denial of a summary judgment but also from the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 101.106 of the TTCA.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to a prejudgment affidavit of indigence.

Kastner v. the Hon. Tom Lawrence, Individually and as Harris County Justices of the Peace · filed 2009-12-17(a)

Appellant is instead attempting to appeal an interlocutory order sustaining a contest to appellant's prejudgment affidavit of indigence. ... The October 3, 2008 interlocutory order from which appellant has appealed is not an order that is made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008).

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of inability to pay trial court filing fees and costs.

Artemis v. Houston Fire Dept. · filed 2009-12-31(a)

The July 27, 2009 interlocutory order which appellant attempts to appeal is not an order that is made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008).

Section 51.014(a) does not allow an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence.

Tilotta v. Smith-Tilotta · filed 2010-03-04(a)

The August 25, 2009 interlocutory order from which appellant has appealed is not an order that is made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008).

Section 51.014(a)(8) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under section 101.106(e), because the asserted immunity is not jurisdictional.

Jones v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice · filed 2010-04-14(a)(8)

Therefore, the immunity conferred by section 101.106 is not jurisdictional. An order granting a motion to dismiss under section 101.106(e) cannot be appealed under section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014 does not make a summary judgment order appealable merely because it resolves some claims while a counterclaim remains pending.

Sifuentes v. Ole Chevrolet, L.P. D/B/A Midway Chevrolet and Service Life and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2010-04-21

Here, nothing in the record reflects that Chevrolet's counterclaim was severed, dismissed, or non-suited, and we can find no statute that expressly authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a summary-judgment order that does not dispose of all claims against all parties. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008) (providing when an interlocutory order is appealable).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a contempt or sanctions order.

William R. Vance, Jr., Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Florene K. Grace v. Vance · filed 2010-06-23(a)

Neither order is an appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008).

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a temporary restraining order.

in Re: Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos · filed 2010-07-15(a)(4)

Section 51.014, however, does not provide for interlocutory appeal of a temporary restraining order.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Davis v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2010-11-05

A trial court’s order granting a motion to withdraw is not an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Cecilio Caldera, Jr. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2010-11-05

A trial court’s order granting a motion to withdraw is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order imposing discovery sanctions.

Hunt v. MERS, Inc. · filed 2010-08-20(a)

The order from which Hunt appeals is not a final, appealable judgment, nor has the legislature made this sort of interlocutory order appealable. Cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2008); Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.3 (sanctions order for abuse of discovery process "shall be subject to review on appeal from the final judgment").

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a partial summary judgment that leaves claims unresolved.

Glenda Alford and Alfred Miller v. Paul W. Dubose and Glenna Dubose · filed 2010-08-23

The record before this Court demonstrates that there are a number of causes of action upon which the trial court has yet to rule. The purported appeal does not fall into one of the statutorily permissible interlocutory appeals. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal of a protective order rendered while a divorce proceeding is pending.

Larry Steven Jones, Jr. v. Jones · filed 2010-12-30

A protective order rendered while a divorce proceeding is pending is not a final judgment that can be appealed, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of a vexatious litigant order or a related order requiring security.

Jesus Almanza D/B/A Jesus Almanza Concrete v. Tracie "Oehler" Keller D/B/A Oehler Properties · filed 2011-01-19

Further, there is no statutory right of an ... interlocutory appeal of a vexatious litigant order or the related order requiring security.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to reconsider.

CTL/Thompson Texas, LLC Michael L. Lester, P.E. Che-Hung Tsai, Ph.D., P.E. And Srikanth Dinakaran, P.E. v.… · filed 2011-03-03

But no statute exists giving us interlocutory jurisdiction over an order denying a motion to reconsider. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008) (authorizing a variety of interlocutory appeals but not including an appeal from an order denying a motion to reconsider); ... To the extent CTL’s second motion for dismissal is in the nature of a motion for reconsideration, the trial court’s July 6, 2010 order is not an appealable order.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a contempt order.

Jon Skelton and Skelton Investments, LLC v. Plainscapital Bank · filed 2011-03-10(a)

Appellants cite no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from a trial court’s contempt order. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders and not including contempt orders).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an abatement order.

State v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership · filed 2011-03-23

An abatement order is not one of the specific types of interlocutory orders that the legislature has designated as appealable.

Section 51.014 does not make an abatement order appealable as an interlocutory order.

Cunningham v. Navarro Regional Hospital, L.P. D/B/A Navarro Regional Hospital Patricia Sullivan, RN And Lisa Hend · filed 2011-03-23

An abatement order is not one of the specific types of interlocutory orders that the legislature has designated as appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(8) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order continuing a governmental unit's plea to the jurisdiction and allowing additional discovery.

Texas Department of Public Safety Steve McGraw, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Texas Department… · filed 2011-04-14(a)(8)

While the Department contends that the trial court "implicitly" denied its plea to the jurisdiction, the order appealed from does not deny the plea to the jurisdiction, implicitly or otherwise, but grants the appellees' motion for continuance of the Department's plea to the jurisdiction and allows additional discovery.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment disposing of only one of two defendants.

Sun Purcell v. Ronald K. Purcell and Max Bishop · filed 2011-05-12(a)

Accordingly, because the summary judgment is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a litigant indigent status.

Ex Parte Robert E. MacLaren · filed 2011-05-25

We have no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order that denies indigent status to a litigant.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an ordinary denial of partial summary judgment.

in the Interest of W.G.O. III, a Minor Child · filed 2011-06-09

The December 17, 2010 order denying Appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment is an interlocutory order not subject to appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(11) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under Section 90.007.

in Re: The Kansas City Southern Railway Company · filed 2011-04-28(a)(11)

Section 51.014(a)(11) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits appeal from an interlocutory order that “denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 90.007.”

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss when an expert report was timely served and the trial court granted an extension to cure its deficiencies.

Certified EMS, Inc. D/B/A CPnS Staffing v. Potts · filed 2011-05-19(a)(9)

Section 51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order that denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(b). ... When a report has been timely served, however, a defendant may not appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss if the trial court also grants an extension under section 74.351(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ... B ecause the trial court granted an extension of time to cure deficiencies in the reports originally filed by Potts, we lack jurisdiction over Certified EMS’s appeal of the denial of its first motion to dismiss and dismiss its first four issues.

Section 51.014(a) does not allow an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing claims against some defendants while claims against others remain pending.

Dodson v. Robert Ford, Sean Colston, Tarrant County Dist. Atty, and the State of Texas · filed 2011-08-18(a)

The trial court’s July 1, 2011 order is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a statutory probate court, even when that court has concurrent jurisdiction with a district court.

Town of Flower Mound, Texas v. Mockingbird Pipeline, L.P. · filed 2011-10-13(a)

Although the probate court may have concurrent jurisdiction with district courts in condemnation proceedings, nothing in the statutory framework shows that the legislature intended the probate court to function as a district court to the extent that section 51.014(a)‘s language would implicitly include ―statutory probate court‖ in the list of courts from which interlocutory appeals may be taken.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a permanency hearing order.

in the Interest of A.J., a Child · filed 2012-01-19(a)

Accordingly, because the permanency hearing order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, [3] we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, [4] and we dismiss Appellant’s request for appointed counsel for this appeal as moot.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction; an order dismissing claims as frivolous under Chapter 14 does not qualify.

Hickman v. Tdcj · filed 2012-02-23(a)(5)

Review of the record indicates that the order signed on November 8, 2011 is not an order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction, but is rather an order dismissing appellant’s claims, in part, as frivolous under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a stay and transfer request or an order compelling compliance with arbitration subpoenas.

Rwls Llc v. Gray Wireline Service Inc. · filed 2012-03-01

Appellant attempts to appeal two orders: (1) an order denying appellant's motion to stay and application to transfer appellee's application for order compelling compliance with arbitration subpoenas; and (2) an order granting appellee's application for order compelling compliance with arbitration subpoenas. Neither of these orders are appealable interlocutory orders under section 51.014 or under any other statute.

Section 51.014(a) does not include contempt orders among the interlocutory orders that may be appealed.

in the Interest of L.S., A.S., and M.S., Children · filed 2012-03-22(a)

Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from a trial court’s contempt order. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2011) (listing appealable interlocutory orders and not including contempt orders).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order staying proceedings pending compliance with the vexatious litigant statute.

Douglas v. the Honorable Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles · filed 2012-04-05

Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal from an order staying a proceeding pending compliance with the vexatious litigant statute.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order on a motion to show authority to act.

Efrem Sewell, Thomas Meeks, Joseph Guillory, Milo Shepard and Tony Thomas v. HardRiders, Inc. · filed 2012-01-19

An order on a motion to show authority to act is not one of those appealable interlocutory orders listed in section 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying reconsideration.

Gulf Energy Exploration Corp. v. Fugro Chance, Inc. · filed 2012-02-23

We have no jurisdiction to rule on a motion to reconsider. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2011) (allowing numerous interlocutory appeals, but not including an appeal from an order denying a motion to reconsider); see also Morrison Homes, 337 S.W.3d at 443.