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

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the nihil dicit judgment at issue because it is not an appealable interlocutory order.

$5,990.00 in U.S. Currency And 1999 Mercury v. State · filed 2012-05-03

Because the “Interlocutory Nihil Dicit Judgment” signed by the trial court on February 27, 2012, does not constitute an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2008) (setting forth appealable interlocutory orders).

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

Tchewam "Lily" Mukwange v. Public Storage · filed 2012-05-24(a)

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.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order requiring a party to pay the costs of his suit.

Ebron v. Jones · filed 2012-06-28(a)

Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from a trial court’s order that appellant pay the costs of his suit.

Section 51.014 does not allow an interlocutory appeal from the denial of an individual's motion challenging jurisdiction over an agency's collection claims.

Bedell v. State · filed 2012-07-06

There is no final trial-court order or judgment in the record, and section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of an individual's motions asserting that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over an agency's collection claims against him.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a ruling on an indigency affidavit filed with an original action.

Mitchell v. Federal Bureau Investigations, Texas Lottery Commission, James Bennett, Norris Ralph Mitchell · filed 2012-07-12(a)

There is no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an indigency ruling pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a garnishment order.

Robert L. and Julia T. McCullough v. Scarbrough, Medlin, & Associates, Inc. · filed 2012-07-31

The May 7, 2012 order is not a final judgment and is not an otherwise appealable interlocutory order under Section 51.014.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when an order denies relief sought under Section 74.351(b); an order ruling only on objections to expert reports is not appealable under that provision.

Silsbee Oaks Health Care, L.L.P. v. Melancon · filed 2012-10-25(a)(9)

Under section 51.014(a)(9), a party may appeal from an interlocutory order that denies relief “sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b).” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (emphasis added). ... We conclude the order of September 2011 was not an appealable order because it did not deny any of the types of relief that are the subject of an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a vexatious litigant finding.

Luis S. Lagaite, Jr. 762508 v. Boland · filed 2012-12-13(a)

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2012). None mention an appeal from a vexatious litigant finding.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to a petition to proceed in the trial court without advance payment of fees and costs.

Winningham v. Means · filed 2012-12-21(a)

The trial court’s order sustaining the contest to Appellant’s petition to proceed in the trial court without advance payment of fees and costs is an ... interlocutory order for which there is no right of interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an indigency ruling under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145.

Dunson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC · filed 2012-11-21(a)

There is no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an indigency ruling pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.

Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo D/B/A Collectively RDI Global Services and R & D International v. Alliance Rigg · filed 2013-03-13

Further, there is no statutory provision authorizing an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the order at issue here is not appealable.

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

Estate of George Lee Mabe · filed 2013-03-13

Further, this type of interlocutory order is not included within section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code as an order from which an interlocutory appeal is authorized.

Section 51.014(a)(7) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a special appearance, but not from an order denying reconsideration of that ruling.

Pahl v. Don Swaim, P.C. · filed 2013-07-26(a)(7)

An order denying a motion for reconsideration is not an immediately appealable order.

Section 51.014(a) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction, but does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting its motion for summary judgment.

Sanadco Inc. v. Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts · filed 2013-09-26(a)

The legislature has empowered appellate review of a trial court’s interlocutory order granting a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a), but has not empowered us with authority over interlocutory orders granting a governmental unit’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, in this appeal, we only address the six counterclaims listed in the body of the opinion that were attacked and dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

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

Turner, Mickey v. Roberson, Nicole · filed 2013-05-17(a)

Again, we have no jurisdiction over this issue because the order on his motion to disqualify counsel is not a final appealable order or judgment, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order.

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

Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo D/B/A Collectively RDI Global Services and R & D International v. Alliance Rigg · filed 2013-07-24

An order granting a motion to compel discovery is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 allows interlocutory review only when a statute specifically authorizes review of the order.

Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, D/B/A Collectively RDI Global Services and R & D International v. Alliance Rig · filed 2014-02-28

We note that we are without interlocutory jurisdiction to consider Issues Two through Five, since review of those orders is not specifically provided for by statute. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 et seq. (West 2013)(setting out proper grounds for interlocutory appeal).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying leave to file a fourth amended petition.

Morris v. Nelson · filed 2014-01-14

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed November 4, 2013, denying appellants’ oral motion for leave to file a fourth amended petition. ... This appeal is from an interlocutory order not permitted to be appealed by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed).

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a Rule 91a motion that challenges the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

City of Austin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 2014-05-16(a)(8)

In the present case, the Rule 91a motion challenged the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted; therefore, section 51.014(a)(8) affords the City a right to an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of the motion.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order striking a party’s answer.

JT Masonry, Inc. v. Sunlight Enterprises Co., Inc. · filed 2014-05-30

We may also review interlocutory orders when authorized by statute. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2013); Bally Total Fitness Corporation v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s order granting Appellee’s amended motion to strike Appellant’s answer is an interlocutory order. An appeal of this order is not authorized by statute and a final judgment has not been entered.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a severance order.

Flores v. Victor Parra and Joe Spencer · filed 2014-05-30

The severance order is an interlocutory order and there is no statutory provision authorizing an appeal from a severance order. Accordingly, the severance order is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal when a governmental unit’s motion challenges jurisdiction, even if the motion is styled as one for summary judgment.

College of the Mainland v. Glover · filed 2014-06-05(a)(8)

When assessing our jurisdiction under Section 51.014(a)(8), we must also consider the substance of the plea for relief. ... Because the College moved for summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds, we will treat the College’s motion as a plea to the jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not make orders denying a request to appear by telephone, a request for an attorney ad litem, or a summary-judgment motion appealable interlocutory orders.

in the Interest of R. N. P. and E. A. P. · filed 2014-06-25

Specifically, he alleges that he did not receive notice of the trial court’s various orders (1) denying his request to appear at the SAPCR hearing by telephone, (2) denying his request for an attorney ad litem, (3) denying his summary-judgment motion, and (4) establishing his paternity and child-support obligation. ... The first three orders about which Perkins complains are non-appealable interlocutory orders, and therefore Rule 306a does not apply. See id. (referring only to final judgment and appealable orders); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing interlocutory orders that are appealable).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize interlocutory appeals from the pretrial motion rulings identified in this opinion.

Janeen Smith v. Naden · filed 2014-07-18(a)

Further, none of the rulings that Smith seeks to appeal are subject to interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing a petition in intervention or denying sanctions and attorney’s fees.

in the Interest of I.G.R. · filed 2014-08-13

For example, section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code lists circumstances under which a person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. We cannot, however, find any statutory authority that allows a party to appeal from an interlocutory order that dismisses a petition in intervention or denies a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal after denial of a motion to dismiss a health care liability claim; denial of objections to an expert report does not start the appeal timetable.

Southwest Surgical Hospital v. Bowen · filed 2014-09-04(a)(9)

Thus, the timetable for filing Hospital’s notice of appeal did not begin to run until the trial court denied a motion to dismiss.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial.

Ukpong v. Dawn Deborrah Ukpong · filed 2014-08-13

An order denying a motion for new trial is not a judgment, and is not independently appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(8) treats an order granting or denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction as interlocutory only if claims or parties remain before the trial court.

Christopher L. Gay and Steven L. Carroll v. the City of Wichita Falls, Texas · filed 2014-08-13(a)(8)

The grant or denial of a governmental plea is interlocutory only if it fails to dispose of all claims or parties before the trial court.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under these circumstances.

in the Interest of D.M.M., a Child · filed 2014-11-25

Even if we consider the trial court’s order as appellant suggests, this court does not have jurisdiction over the denial of a motion to dismiss under these circumstances. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed).

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying dismissal for failure to serve an expert report, but not from an order granting dismissal on that ground.

Fisher v. Medical Center of Plano · filed 2015-01-07(a)(9)

The civil practice and remedies code does not authorize appeal of such orders Riggs v. Perlman, No. 01-13-00974-CV, 2014 WL 2627841, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 12, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an indigency ruling under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145.

Jay Sandon Cooper and Teresa Ward Cooper v. State · filed 2014-10-28(a)

Moreover, there is no statute authorizing an appeal from an indigency ruling pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2014).

Section 51.014(a)(8) requires a signed written order before an appellate court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from a plea to the jurisdiction.

the City of Beaumont v. Jackson · filed 2014-11-07(a)(8)

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal authorized by section 51.014(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code unless the trial court signed a written order.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal of a discovery ruling without statutory authorization.

Saldana-Fountain v. Chavez Law Firm, Enrique Chavez, Jr., and Chavez Law, P. C. · filed 2014-11-25

Further, we are without jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory appeals of the trial court’s discovery rulings absent statutory authorization.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal from a ruling on a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction, but not from a ruling on its summary judgment motion.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Baldonad · filed 2015-04-30(a)(8)

Only the trial court’s denial of appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction is subject to this interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a notice of appeal in the district court.

Chavez v. State · filed 2015-07-09

The interlocutory order at issue here is not among those that we are permitted to review.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from these orders denying motions to dismiss, for a declaratory finding, or to dismiss for want of prosecution.

Hunt v. Stovall · filed 2015-08-10(a)

To the extent that the trial court’s orders denied Hunt’s motions to dismiss and for a declaratory finding and his motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, those orders are not final judgments and are not authorized as appealable by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.014(a)(1)–(12); Stary, 967 S.W.2d at 352–53.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order awarding attorney’s fees in connection with a motion to compel discovery.

Brown v. Hector Argudo, Michael A. Moseley and United Fifty, LLC · filed 2015-09-02

The order awarding attorney’s fees in the context of a motion to compel discovery is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a section 74.351(b) motion to dismiss, but not from an order granting one.

Harper v. Texas Tech Health Science Center · filed 2015-09-23(a)(9)

Although a party may appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to section 74.351(b), see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. § 51.014(a)(9), section 51.014(a) does not authorize an appeal of an interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to section 74.351(b).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a mistrial.

Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, D/B/A Collectively RDI Global Services, and R&D International v. Alliance Rigg · filed 2015-09-23

The underlying case has not yet proceeded to a final judgment and an interlocutory order granting a mistrial is not appealable.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from orders denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge or a motion to reconsider.

Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, D/B/A Collectively RDI Global Services, and R&D International v. Alliance Rigg · filed 2015-09-23

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corporation, 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2015)(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). ... Appellants filed a notice of appeal indicating that they are appealing the orders denying their motion to disqualify the trial judge and denying their motion to reconsider. ... The orders Appellants seek to challenge are not subject to an interlocutory appeal.

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

Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, D/B/A Collectively RDI Global Services, and R&D International v. Alliance Rigg · filed 2015-09-23

An order denying a motion for continuance is not subject to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a petition to terminate parental rights.

in the Interest of C.M. and C.F., Children · filed 2016-03-17

There is no provision for interlocutory appeal of an order denying a termination petition; we do not have jurisdiction over such interlocutory orders.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting relief under Section 74.351(b).

Emma E. Du Bois, Individually and in Her Capacity as Representative of the Estate of Dora Miller Du Bois v. Irf · filed 2016-04-14(a)(10)

In this case, the trial court granted relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b). We lack jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of such an order because it is neither an order denying relief sought by a motion under 74.351(b), nor one granting relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(l).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order striking an intervention.

Nghiem v. Rupom Sajib and Global Aviation Service, Inc. D/B/A Global Aviation Services & D/B/A Global Aviation Se · filed 2016-08-02

An interlocutory order striking an intervention is not an appealable order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a divorce and dividing the marital estate while other claims remain pending.

in Re: Edsel Amos Dixon · filed 2016-09-21

The order is not the type for which an interlocutory appeal is available. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2016).

Section 51.014(a)(7) permits an immediate appeal from an order denying a special appearance; an order denying reconsideration is independently appealable when the motion raises a new ground.

Michelin North America, Inc. v. Gallegos · filed 2017-11-21(a)(7)

An order denying a special appearance is an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7) (West Supp. 2016). ... However, when the motion to reconsider an appealable interlocutory order raises a new ground, an order denying the motion is independently and immediately appealable. ... Because the motion to amend and reconsider presented no new argument, we conclude the amended order denying appellant’s special appearance was not independently appealable and agree with appellees that appellant should have filed its notice of appeal within twenty days of the signing of the original order.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal of an order granting or denying a governmental unit’s jurisdictional challenge, but does not permit an appeal of an order dismissing third-party claims on non-jurisdictional grounds.

Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. v. State · filed 2018-06-22(a)(8)

The legislature has authorized interlocutory appeals from an order granting or denying a governmental unit’s challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(8). ... Texas statutes do not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a governmental unit’s motion to dismiss third-party claims on non-jurisdictional grounds.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment that leaves a defendant in the case.

Danh v. Jessica Perez and Geico County Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2018-09-18

The order granting summary judgment in this case is not a final judgment as it grants Perez’s motion for summary judgment, but does not dispose of the remaining defendant. No statutory exception applies to this appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of an order that neither appoints a receiver nor grants or refuses a temporary injunction.

Jay & VMK, Corp. and John Kelly v. Cristina Lopez and Humanitarian Financial, Inc. · filed 2019-01-24(a)(1), (a)(4)

Because the Preliminary Order neither appointed a receiver nor granted or refused a temporary injunction, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of the order.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not independently authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying reconsideration of a motion to dismiss under Section 74.351(b).

Richter v. Downey · filed 2018-12-07(a)(9)

Moreover, we find no support for an independent right to an interlocutory appeal of such an order.

A party seeking to appeal a partial summary judgment generally must show that Section 51.014 permits the interlocutory appeal.

Williams v. Shaw · filed 2018-12-13(a)

A party seeking review of a partial summary judgment generally must show that the interlocutory order is appealable under Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

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

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez · filed 2019-02-15

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corporation, 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). Appellant filed notice of appeal indicating that she is appealing an interlocutory order signed by the trial court on January 10, 2019 granting a motion to disqualify Appellant’s attorney. No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order disqualifying counsel.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting relief under section 74.351(b).

Gabriel Miranda Jr., Maria Fuentes, Gabriel Miranda Sr., Alexandria Suzanne De Leon, Reuben Antonio De Leon III and Jon · filed 2019-04-18(a)(9)

In this case, the trial court granted relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b). We lack jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of such an order because it is neither an order denying relief sought by a motion under 74.351(b), nor one granting relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(I).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying an unauthorized petition for release under the Sexually Violent Predator statute.

in the Commitment of Richard A. Dunsmore · filed 2019-05-21

The February 7, 2018 order is not one for which an interlocutory appeal is statutorily authorized, either by Chapter 841 or by Section 51.014.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a TCPA dismissal motion, but does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a disqualification or recusal order.

Richard Stephen Calkins and His Counsel, Susan C. Norman v. Carolyn Calkins James and Maurice Bresenham, Jr., Administra · filed 2019-05-30(a)(12)

Neither the statute on which this Court relies for its interlocutory appellate jurisdiction nor any other statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a disqualification or recusal order. See id. § 51.014(a)(12).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying an unauthorized petition for release from civil commitment.

in the Commitment of Richard A. Dunsmore · filed 2019-06-18

The June 15, 2018 order is not one for which an interlocutory appeal is statutorily authorized, either by Chapter 841 or by Section 51.014.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a request for declaratory judgment.

Jefferson County, Texas v. Dent · filed 2019-07-25(a)

However, the trial court’s ruling on the County’s declaratory judgment is merely an interlocutory ruling and no statute exists authorizing an appeal from a trial court’s interlocutory ruling on a request for declaratory judgment.

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

April Small, Individually and on Behalf or Her Minor Child, E. C. v. Garcia · filed 2019-07-23(a)

The grant of a bill of review is not one of the interlocutory orders permitted to be appealed under Section 51.014(a) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a request to appear at a hearing by telephone.

Vodicka v. Michael B. Tobolowsky, of the Estate of Ira E. Tobolowsky · filed 2019-11-14(a)

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s August 8, 2019 order denying his request to appear by telephone for the hearing scheduled 6 days later. This order is not a final judgment and is not otherwise subject to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a declaratory judgment resolving marital agreements while the divorce case remains pending.

Shatara Wright v. Payne · filed 2019-11-14

However, the declaratory judgment is not an appealable interlocutory order. Wright has not demonstrated that a statute justifies an interlocutory appeal of the declaratory judgment, and we know of no statute that permits such an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an appeal from a postjudgment order declaring a money judgment satisfied when the order neither commands nor restrains action.

Sunnyland Development, Inc. v. Shawn Ibrahim, Inc. · filed 2020-01-23(a)

The trial court’s order is not one for which an appeal is statutorily authorized. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a). ... The trial court’s order does neither. It does not require Sunnyland or anyone else to act or refrain from acting. The order is declaratory: it states that the April 2014 judgment was satisfied upon the appellees’ tender of $680,000 to Sunnyland.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order asserting jurisdiction and determining venue.

in the Interest of J.Y., a Child · filed 2020-03-11

However, the notice does not identify the specific subsection of Section 51.014 that authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s February 25, 2020, order, and we find none that apply here.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to appoint an attorney ad litem.

Luther W. Cobb, Sr v. Campbell · filed 2020-02-20

Although the clerk’s record contains an order denying his motion to appoint attorney ad litem, that order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed).

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a private party’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denying a motion to quash and for protective order, or resetting a case for trial.

KST Capital, LLC, Tobin Parker, Tobin M. Parker Jr., and W. Schreiner Parker v. American Bank of Commerce · filed 2020-04-16

We conclude that none of the three interlocutory orders here are appealable.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an unsevered summary judgment that resolves claims against only one of multiple defendants.

Ronald W. Reynolds and Mary S. Reynolds v. Cypress Custom Homes, LLC., Nathan Paul Bass, Byron Green, Charles Garrett, M · filed 2020-10-14

Nor is the order appealable as interlocutory. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2020) (appeal from interlocutory order).

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

Gonzalez v. Durango Midrise, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Hemisview Village · filed 2021-02-24(a)

“An order granting a motion to withdraw as counsel is not an appealable interlocutory order.” ... Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting substitute service of process.

Grantham v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline · filed 2021-03-02(a)

Because the order granting substitute service of process is neither a final judgment nor subject to an interlocutory appeal, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an amended order that leaves attorney’s fees and costs unresolved.

Uptown Cars, Inc. v. Newcastle Management Trust and Jerry Landers · filed 2021-06-25(a)

The amended order is not a final judgment because it did not dispose of all pending parties and claims, see Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; see also Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. 2015) (affirming dismissal for want of jurisdiction because trial court order did not dispose of claim for attorney’s fees), and the order is not the type of interlocutory order that the Legislature has made appealable, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a finding of aggravated circumstances in a parental-termination case.

J. L. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2021-06-29

A finding of aggravated circumstances in a parental-termination case is not a final order, and it does not fall within any of the categories of appealable interlocutory orders. See Hernandez v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 392 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2012, no pet.); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a pretrial order on will construction issues.

in the Estate of F.J. Leonards · filed 2021-07-06

This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). The March 12, 2020 amended order is interlocutory and not subject to interlocutory appeal under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from this pretrial order on will construction issues.

in the Estate of Edna Mae Leonards · filed 2021-07-06

The March 12, 2020 amended order is interlocutory and not subject to interlocutory appeal under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(10) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing a health care liability claim under section 74.351(b).

Cody Bernard, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Paul Bernard, and Blake Bernard v. Alexander Wesley, M · filed 2021-07-12(a)(10)

Because section 51.014(a)(10) does not authorize the appeal and neither does any other statute or rule, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a) does not allow an interlocutory appeal from an order vacating a severance order.

Charles "Chuck" Zubarik v. Francisco and Marianne Gonzalez, Roni Henderson, the First Amended Phillips Family Trust, Eri · filed 2021-07-29(a)

The order vacating the severance order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to retain a case on the trial court’s docket.

Copeland v. Lujan · filed 2021-08-19

Further, an order granting a motion to retain a case on the trial court’s docket is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to appoint counsel or a motion for discovery.

Phillips v. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation · filed 2021-08-31(a)

Neither an order denying a motion to appoint counsel nor a motion for discovery is an appealable interlocutory order that confers jurisdiction on the Court, and nothing in appellant’s letter brief demonstrates our jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a private party’s plea to the jurisdiction.

in Re: Woods Capital Enterprises, LLC · filed 2021-11-08

The order denying the plea to the jurisdiction is not an appealable interlocutory order. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014.

Section 51.014(a)(6) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying summary judgment on a claim or defense arising under the free speech clause; it does not authorize an appeal from an order granting summary judgment.

James Preservation Trust, Eric F. James D/B/A Stray Leaves, Leaves of Gas v. Rob Burley, Burley Auction Group, Inc., Loi · filed 2022-01-06(a)(6)

This is not an appeal under section 51.014(a)(6). That subsection allows a person to appeal from an interlocutory order that “denies a motion for summary judgment” related to a claim or defense “arising under the free speech clause[.]” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(6) (emphasis added). The order the James Defendants attempted to appeal granted the Burley Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order approving interpleader.

Theresa Ruebbling, Individually and as Heir of Victoria Rangel v. Foremost County Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-07-20

Because the trial court’s order granting summary judgment was not a final order, and because no statute permits an interlocutory appeal of orders approving interpleader, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

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

in the Estate of Billy Wayne Phillips · filed 2022-07-26(a)

An interlocutory order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not included among the appealable orders listed in Section 51.014.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order signed under Chapter 841 of the Health and Safety Code.

in Re Commitment of Lonnie Kade Welsh · filed 2022-07-28(a)

And while the legislature did provide for appeals for around fifteen types of interlocutory orders, the provisions that create appellate jurisdiction over these interlocutory orders have no application to orders signed by trial courts under Chapter 841.

Section 51.014(a)(8) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of a temporary restraining order that preserves the status quo without implicitly denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and John Silovsky, Wildlife Division Director v. RW Trophy Ranch, Ltd., and Robert W · filed 2022-05-03(a)(8)

We cannot construe the straight-forward TRO as an implicit denial of the plea to the jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a pretrial writ of attachment.

Jason Paul White, DDS v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe, a Minor Child, and John Doe II, as Next · filed 2022-07-25

Even if one existed, ... no interlocutory appeal lies from a pretrial writ of attachment.

Section 51.014(a) does not make an interlocutory order denying summary judgment immediately appealable.

Lynn v. Ferguson · filed 2022-08-11(a)

Here, the trial court’s interlocutory order denying Lynn’s motion for summary judgment is not one of the interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by Section 51.014(a).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss or awarding attorney fees under Rule 91a.

Shah v. Maple Energy Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-08-16

Because the trial court’s order was not a final order, and because no statute permits an interlocutory appeal of orders denying a motion to dismiss or awarding attorney fees under Rule 91a, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a request for an expedited hearing.

Gilbert v. John B. Scott, Texas Secretary of State, and Keith Ingram, Director of Elections · filed 2022-09-20(a)

And it is not one of the types of interlocutory orders the legislature has made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a) (enumerating appealable orders).

Section 51.014(a)(5) may permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under the Texas Tort Claims Act, even though the order does not deny summary judgment.

Michael Wheeler, Ronald Raymaker, Jon Fletcher, John Escoto, Katherine Reyer, William Ferebee, Jacon Reuvers and Deborah · filed 2022-10-06(a)(5)

It is of no consequence that the judgment in this case does not involve a judgment denying a summary judgment motion asserting immunity. See Austin State Hosp. v. Graham, 347 S.W.3d 298, 300–01 (Tex. 2011) (holding that Section 51.014(a)(5) is not limited to summary judgments but may apply to order denying motion to dismiss under Texas Tort Claims Act).

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a TCPA motion to dismiss when the order resolves claims against only one of multiple defendants.

Hodge v. Amanda Carter, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Quinton Hodge, Jr., A/K/A J. Q. Hodge, Jr. · filed 2022-10-27

In this case, the trial court’s order only disposes of Hodge’s claims against one defendant, and an order granting a Texas Citizens Participation Act motion to dismiss in favor of only one of multiple defendants is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from this order partially granting and partially denying a private party’s plea to the jurisdiction.

John Traylor D/B/A John Traylor Insurance v. Lane · filed 2022-11-15

Further, the August 22 order is not the type of interlocutory order from which the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal.1 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Supp.).

Subsection (a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal when the order grants or denies a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction; an order granting the opposing party’s partial summary judgment does not qualify.

City of Houston, Texas v. Isabel Mejia and Rosa Mejia · filed 2023-02-16(a)(8)

For jurisdiction to lie based on section 51.014(a)(8), the City must be appealing from an order of the trial court that denies its plea to the jurisdiction. ... Similarly, in this case, the City attempts to appeal the grant of the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, which was not a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the City; we therefore lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.

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

Bradshaw v. Cummins Southern Plains, LLC · filed 2023-03-09

The order that Appellant attempts to appeal is not a final, appealable order. Rather, it is an interlocutory order from which no appeal is authorized by statute. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2022) (permitting appeals from certain interlocutory orders).

Section 51.014(a)(7) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a special appearance, but Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to abate.

Michael Nagata, Jack Van Vleit and James (Patt) Edgar v. MHWIRTH Inc. · filed 2023-03-09(a)(7)

However, Section 51.014 does not extend this Court’s jurisdiction over the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motions to abate. Neither Section 51.014 nor any other statute provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to stay or abate the trial court’s proceedings.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a parental-rights termination decree.

In the Interest of P.M. & E. M. v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2023-03-09

An interlocutory parental termination decree is not an appealable order.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from denial of a Rule 91a motion merely because the motion alleges grounds for dismissal under Section 74.351(b).

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. County of Dallas · filed 2023-05-02(a)(9)

We agree with appellee that the motion the trial court denied was a Rule 91a motion, thus making the trial court’s order unappealable. ... Because the substance of the motion is, indeed, a motion for dismissal under Rule 91a, which is based on alleged deficiencies with appellee’s claims under Section 74.351(b) and because of other alleged deficiencies with the claims that have nothing to do with Section 74.351(b), the trial court’s denial of the motion is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a Rule 91a motion merely because it alleges deficiencies under Section 74.351(b).

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. County of Bexar · filed 2023-05-02(a)(9)

Because the substance of the motion is, indeed, a motion for dismissal under Rule 91a, which is based on alleged deficiencies with appellee’s claims under Section 74.351(b) and because of other alleged deficiencies with the claims that have nothing to do with Section 74.351(b), the trial court’s denial of the motion is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(8) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a governmental entity’s summary-judgment motion based solely on res judicata.

The City of Houston v. James Construction Group, LLC · filed 2023-05-08(a)(8)

The City’s summary-judgment motion, exclusively based on its assertion of res judicata following the City Engineer’s decision, raised no ground based on immunity, and cannot reasonably be construed as a plea to the jurisdiction or any other jurisdictional challenge. ... The Court’s order denying summary judgment is neither a final judgment nor an order that falls within the scope of an interlocutory appeal statute.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a Chapter 74 motion to dismiss.

Dallas Plastic Surgery Institute, Inc. v. Walid Zoubi, Individually and as Heir to and Representive of the Estate of Our · filed 2023-05-24(a)(9)

Though we agree that our jurisdiction generally does not extend to an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion for summary judgment, we do not lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal of the denial of a Chapter 74 motion to dismiss.

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

Harrell v. Evans · filed 2023-05-25

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

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a child-support arrearage notice.

Desmarais v. Unknown · filed 2023-06-30

This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order, and a child-support arrearage notice is not an appealable interlocutory order. ... see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of various interlocutory orders but not permitting appeal from grant or denial of child-support arrearage notice).

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a discovery sanction order.

Jordan v. Jordan · filed 2023-07-13(a)

As Jordan acknowledges in her response, no final judgment has been signed in the SAPCR, and neither the trial court’s discovery sanction order nor its temporary orders are reviewable by interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a combined motion for summary judgment and dismissal under section 74.155.

Silsbee Oaks Health Care, L.L.P. v. Patricia Smart, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Bonnie Smart · filed 2023-09-28(a)(9)

We conclude section 51.014(a)(9), which allows a party to appeal an interlocutory order, doesn’t authorize an accelerated interlocutory appeal from an order denying a combined motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss under CPRC section 74.155.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order setting an appeal bond in an eviction appeal.

Samurai Martial Sports, Inc. v. CRE Properties, Inc. · filed 2023-12-05

An order setting an appeal bond for the appeal of an eviction proceeding has not been specifically designated as an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a scheduling order.

Herczeg v. City of Austin · filed 2024-02-02

Furthermore, to the extent that appellant is attempting to appeal from the scheduling order, such orders are non-appealable, interlocutory orders over which this Court has no jurisdiction to review.

Section 51.014(a)(8) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when no order denies a governmental unit’s jurisdictional motion and the trial court has not implicitly denied it by ruling on the merits.

City of Houston and Houston Airport System v. Griner · filed 2024-03-28(a)(8)

However, the clerk’s record does not contain any signed order denying either motion. ... The appellate record does not reflect any ruling on the merits of Griner’s claims after the filing of the City’s motions challenging subject-matter jurisdiction. ... We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a third party’s objections to a deposition notice and motion for protection.

Ratcliff v. General Dynamics Corporation, General Dynamics Information Technology/New Hampshire Insuranc · filed 2024-05-14

Further, no statutory exception applies that would allow an interlocutory appeal of the February 27, 2024 order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014.

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

Crain Jr. v. Murach · filed 2024-10-02(a)

The denial of a motion for default judgment is not subject to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a temporary injunction, but not a temporary restraining order.

Jones v. Angel O. Torres, Jr. · filed 2024-12-04(a)(4)

While an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a temporary injunction is authorized by statute, no statutory provision authorizes an appeal from the grant or denial of a temporary restraining order.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing claims under Texas Occupations Code § 801.3585.

Tamborello v. Dr. Pamelia Shawn Ashley · filed 2024-12-10(a)

We also conclude the order is not an appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a); see also TEX. OCC. CODE § 801.3585.

Section 51.014(a)(1) permits an interlocutory appeal from an initial trustee appointment, but not a successor appointment; subsection (a)(4) permits an appeal when an order functions as a temporary injunction.

James E. White, IV, Individually and as Beneficiary of the Jane White Trust; Marti White Wright, Individually and as a B · filed 2024-12-19(a)(1), (a)(4)

As we have previously held, however, the exception to the finality rule in § 51.014(a)(1) only applies in situations in which a trial court has appointed a trustee in the first instance, not when it has appointed a successor trustee or receiver. ... We therefore conclude that the September 3 Order did not function—nor was it intended to function—as an order granting a temporary injunction that would be appealable under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing counterclaims against one party while other claims remain pending.

Springstun v. the Wharf at Clear Lake Slip Maintenance Association, Inc. · filed 2025-02-20(a)

Springstun’s “Notice of Interlocutory Appeal” filed on September 20, 2024 acknowledged that the challenged order was interlocutory but purported that the appeal was filed “pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a),” which permits appeals from certain specified interlocutory orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a). The interlocutory order in this case, however, is not among the types of orders for which the statute authorizes an appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling discovery and assessing sanctions.

Serrano v. Injury Clinic · filed 2025-02-28

Because the December 17 order is not an appealable interlocutory order authorized by § 51.014, and Serrano’s response does not cite to any other statute that authorizes an appeal of an order compelling discovery and assessing sanctions, we conclude we lack jurisdiction over her direct appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b), but an order denying reconsideration of that ruling is not immediately appealable.

Kingfisher Living, LLC D/B/A Ella Springs Senior Assisted Living Facility v. Caldarera · filed 2025-03-13(a)(9)

Notably, an order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 74.351(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code has been designated by the legislature as an appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(9). ... An order denying a motion for reconsideration is not an immediately appealable order.

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

Samuels v. Texas Workforce Commission · filed 2025-04-02(a)

The denial of a motion for default judgment is not subject to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an immediate appeal from the challenged SAPCR contempt order, denial of temporary orders, or directed verdict on a motion for enforcement.

In the Interest of I.B., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-05-22(a)

None of the challenged trial court orders have been statutorily authorized for immediate interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, but does not permit an appeal from an order denying a motion to disqualify counsel.

Naissance Galleria, LLC v. Zaheer · filed 2025-07-17(a)(4)

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4) allows a party to appeal from an interlocutory appeal that grants or refuses a temporary injunction. ... The trial court’s order denying Naissance Galleria’s motion to disqualify Zaheer’s counsel is a non-appealable interlocutory order; thus, we lack jurisdiction to review it.

Section 51.014(a)(1) and (a)(4) do not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order that merely enforces an existing permanent injunction and gives a receiver no modified or additional authority.

Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Comp · filed 2025-08-12(a)(1), (a)(4)

Bright Health Management first argues the Order is an appealable, interlocutory order because it “functions as a temporary injunction,” or alternatively, is an order that modifies an order appointing a receiver. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.014(a)(1), (a)(4). We disagree. The Order simply enforces the November 2023 permanent injunction that requires Bright Health Management to promptly surrender BHICOT’s property. It does not grant any modified or additional authority to the Receiver.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order refusing to dissolve a writ of sequestration.

Robert Epega D/B/A Million Dollar Transportation, LLC v. Bruckner Truck Sales and Volvo Financial Services · filed 2025-08-13(a)(4)

Strictly construing Section 51.014(a)(4), we hold that an order refusing to dissolve a writ of sequestration is not an order “overrul[ing] a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as provided by Chapter 65” and, therefore, not subject to interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside an appraisal award.

Chavez v. Allied Trust Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-13

The trial court would later sign a written order denying appellant’s motion to set aside; however, there is no statutory basis for an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside an appraisal award.

Section 51.014 permits appeals from orders denying summary judgment only in specified circumstances; an ordinary denial of partial summary judgment in a partition suit is not among them.

J. Mark Miller Trust v. Miller · filed 2025-08-29(a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(17)

While section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes appeals from interlocutory orders denying summary judgment in certain circumstances, none of those circumstances are present here.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to declare a judge’s voluntary recusal letter void.

Perricone v. Perricone · filed 2025-09-11(a)

In turn, the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to declare Judge Moore’s voluntary recusal letter void is not an appealable order because (1) it does not dispose of all parties and claims in the proceeding below and (2) an interlocutory appeal from such an order is not authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2024); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.

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

Elizondo v. Hilcorp Energy Company, Eva Linda Parades, and Law Offices of Donato Ramos PLLC · filed 2025-09-24(a)

An order denying a motion for default judgment is not subject to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014 permits appeals from specified interlocutory orders but does not permit an appeal from an order vacating a default judgment.

Smith v. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC · filed 2025-10-07

The trial court’s July 30 order vacating the default judgment is not an appealable interlocutory order because it does not finally dispose of all claims and all parties. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of various interlocutory orders but not permitting appeal from order vacating default judgment).

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order authorizing immediate issuance of a writ of possession.

Sandy Ramos and William S. Watson v. Lara · filed 2025-10-30(a)

The order also does not appear to be an appealable interlocutory order, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a), and the rules applicable to forcible-detainer suits do not otherwise provide a mechanism for the appeal of such an order.

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

Kalyn Peterson, Individually and as Heir to Jacob Peterson v. D&S Residential Services, LP · filed 2025-12-04(a)

A non-final order granting a motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a has not been specifically designated as an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing a trustee under Property Code § 51.007.

Pierre v. McCarthy Holthus LLP · filed 2025-09-18

Such an order is neither a final judgment nor an order for which an appeal is authorized by statute and is therefore not an appealable order.

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

Manhattan Construction Company v. McCaffety Electric Co., Inc. · filed 2025-10-16

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014 allows a party to appeal certain interlocutory orders, but an order denying a motion to sever is not among them.

Section 51.014(a) does not authorize an immediate appeal from an order denying a motion to join a necessary party defendant.

Jerald H. Miller, Jr. v. Tarrant County Appraisal District, Tarrant County Review Board, Tarrant County, the City of For · filed 2025-12-11(a)

Appellant Jerald H. Miller Jr. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his “motion to join [a] necessary party defendant.” [Capitalization altered.] But our appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from (1) final judgments and (2) interlocutory orders for which the legislature has authorized immediate appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a); Rush Truck Ctrs. of Tex., L.P. v. Sayre, 718 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tex. 2025); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s order is neither.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an immediate appeal from an order granting leave to file an amended answer.

Phillip Ringley, Jr., Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Monarche Living Trust and Keelye Ringley, Individually and a · filed 2025-10-23(a)

But our appellate jurisdiction is limited to the review of final judgments and appealable interlocutory orders, ... and the trial court’s order granting leave is neither.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion under Section 74.351(b).

Mitchell v. J.M. Thomas, Renee Boone, Tina Wise, Deborah Fontenette, T. Castillo, T. White, Caralyn Floyd, Nancy · filed 2026-01-08(a)(9)

The statute does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion based on section 74.351(b).

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

Patrick Minor v. Lee Woo Sung, Jr. · filed 2026-04-15(a)

However, even if the clerk’s record contained an order denying the motion, the denial of a motion for default judgment is an interlocutory order not subject to an immediate appeal.

Section 51.014(a) does not allow an immediate appeal from an order denying default judgment.

Patrick Minor v. Kentucky Fried Chicken · filed 2026-04-15(a)

Ordinarily, the denial of a default judgment is an interlocutory order and not subject to appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal only when the district court issues an order granting or denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction; a refusal to rule is not an appealable order.

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas v. the City of Austin and Austin Transit Partnership Local Government Corporation · filed 2026-05-22(a)(8)

A district court’s refusal to issue an order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction is not an “order of a district court” that “grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction.”

Section 51.014(a) does not make an order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss immediately appealable.

Taylor v. SeaHarbor Insurance and Mariam Abdalla · filed 2026-05-28(a)

An order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss has not been designated as an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a)(1) and (4) authorizes interlocutory appeals from orders appointing a receiver or granting a temporary injunction.

in Re Armando Hernandez and Nancy Hernandez · filed 2015-03-11(a)(1), (4)

The court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §51.014(a)(1), (4) (West 2015) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from orders appointing a receiver and granting temporary injunction). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief are DENIED without prejudice to relators’ right to request emergency relief in the context of an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(5) applies only to suits first filed on or after June 14, 1989.

Ernest Emerson, Quay Wood, Brian McRae, Glenn Zoch and Lewis Di Donato v. Borland · filed 1992-10-14(5)

Consequently, section 51.014(5) does not apply to this suit.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a governmental employee’s assertion of immunity, even when the employee asserted immunity in a motion to dismiss.

Ferebee v. Law Office of Frank Powell & Frank C. Powell · filed 2023-09-12(a)(5)

Therefore, we have appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(5) because Ferebee appealed the trial court’s order denying his assertion of immunity.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal when an officer or employee’s immunity-based motion is denied, but not when the motion is granted.

Cantu v. Bexar Appraisal District and Michael Amezquita · filed 2023-08-16(a)(5)

Section 51.014(a)(5) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows interlocutory appeal of an order that “denies a motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity by an individual who is an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state.” ... Accordingly, Cantu is not entitled to an interlocutory appeal of the order granting the motion to dismiss Amezquita based on his assertion of immunity under subsection 101.106(e) of the Texas Tort Claims Act.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a governmental employee’s assertion of immunity, regardless of the procedural vehicle used.

Ferebee v. Law Office of Frank Powell & Frank C. Powell · filed 2023-08-03(a)(5)

But the Supreme Court has ruled a party may appeal an order denying an assertion of immunity under Section 51.014(a)(5), “regardless of the procedural vehicle used.” ... Therefore, we have appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(5) because Ferebee appealed the trial court’s order denying his assertion of immunity.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction based on a state employee’s assertion of immunity, but not from an order granting the plea.

Caldwell v. Texas Department of Public Safety Steven C. McCraw, in His Official Capacity as Director of the · filed 2023-03-28(a)(5)

And even if Caldwell’s arguments can be read as challenging the trial court’s order granting Johnson’s plea to the jurisdiction, we may only exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal complaining of an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction based on a state employee’s assertion of immunity, not of an order granting such a plea.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a government employee’s assertion of immunity in a Rule 91a motion.

Krause v. Mayes · filed 2022-08-23(a)(5)

Thus, we have jurisdiction over this appeal because section 51.014(a)(5) provides for an interlocutory appeal by Krause from the trial court’s order denying his assertion of immunity under section 101.106 in his Rule 91a motion.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits a private university peace officer to appeal an interlocutory order denying summary judgment based on immunity.

William Marsh Rice University and Rice University Police Department and Officer Henry Cash v. Thomas · filed 2015-06-04(a)(5)

Because Officer Cash is an “officer . . . of the state” within the meaning of Section 51.014(a)(5), we have jurisdiction over his appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment based on an assertion of immunity; a challenge based only on insufficient evidence does not qualify.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. E.R. and J.R. · filed 2009-02-19(a)(5)

In their brief to this Court, the individual defendants attack the injunctive relief on no evidence grounds and not on immunity grounds. ... Strictly construing section 51.014(a)(5), as we must, we conclude that this section does not confer jurisdiction in this Court over this part of the defendants' fourth issue.

Section 51.014(5) permits an immediate appeal from the denial of summary judgment based on a governmental employee’s qualified immunity; after severance, that appeal must be brought in the severed action.

the City of Dallas and MacK Vines/Mica England v. Mica England/The State of Texas · filed 1993-02-10(5)

Appellants correctly observe that the denial of a summary-judgment motion asserting a governmental employee's qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(5) (West Supp. 1993). Should appellants wish to pursue an interlocutory appeal of that decision of the trial court, such appeal must be brought in the severed cause of action addressing England's claim for damages and attorney's fees.

Section 51.014(5) permits a county to appeal the denial of summary judgment when its motion relies on an employee's official immunity.

Travis County, Texas v. Trevino · filed 1995-10-11(5)

Because Travis County's motion was based on the official immunity of the employee who removed Torres' body, the County may appeal the trial court's denial of the summary judgment.

Section 51.014(5) permits an immediate appeal from the denial of summary judgment based on official immunity for a state officer sued individually.

Dupont v. Linden · filed 1996-03-11(5)

Under Texas law, a state officer sued in his individual capacity is entitled to an immediate appeal of the denial of his motion for summary judgment based on the defense of official immunity.

Section 51.014(5) permits a governmental entity to appeal an interlocutory denial of summary judgment based on an employee's official immunity, even if the employee is neither a movant nor a party.

State v. McGeorge · filed 1996-07-03(5)

Moreover, the phrase "assertion of immunity by an individual who is an officer or employee of the state" is satisfied where a claim of immunity by a governmental entity in its motion for summary judgment is based on an assertion of official immunity [2] of an employee, even where, as here, the employee is neither a movant for summary judgment or even a party to the suit.

Section 51.014(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment based on immunity under section 101.106.

Newman v. Obersteller Ex Rel. Obersteller · filed 1997-04-18(5)

We conclude that section 101.106 is an immunity statute. Therefore, the court of appeals erred by not exercising jurisdiction over Newman's interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(5).

Section 51.014(5) does not permit a party to appeal an interlocutory order denying its summary judgment motion when the motion was not based on a claim of official immunity.

Mark T. Holtzapple, Richard R. Davison, Bruce E. Dale and Texas a & M University System v. AFEX Corporation · filed 1997-08-28(5)

However, because TAMUS's motion for summary judgment was not based on a claim of official immunity on the part of the professors, section 51.014(5) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not permit an interlocutory appeal by TAMUS from a denial of its motion.

Section 51.014(a)(5)–(6) permits an interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment involving a government official’s immunity or specified media free speech claims.

NAT. UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH v. Ins. Co. of N. America · filed 1997-11-26(a)(5)-(6)

An appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment is also proper when the denial is: (1) based on an assertion of immunity by an individual who is an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state; or (2) based in whole or in part upon a claim against or defense by a member of the media, acting in such capacity, or a person whose communication appears in or is published by the media, arising under the free speech or free press clause of the First Amendment of the United Stated Constitution, or Article 1, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(5)-(6) (Vernon 1997). The trial court's denial of INA's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim does not fall within either of these exceptions, and therefore, is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(5) does not allow a private citizen to appeal the denial of summary judgment based on immunity claimed for acting at a government officer’s command or request.

Terry R. Espinola D/B/A Southern Security Associates, Southern Security Associates, Inc., and Harvey Lyman Evans v. Haro · filed 1998-06-10(a)(5)

In conclusion, we hold that the provisions of section 51.014(a)(5) do not apply to a private citizen asserting immunity from suit on the basis that he was acting at the command or request of an officer or employee of the State or a political subdivision of the State.