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

Section 51.014(d) requires trial court permission to appeal as the jurisdictional predicate for a permissive interlocutory appeal.

AccessDirect, AHS East Texas Health System, LLC, Cavenders, ERISA,Healthfirst TPA, Inc.,City of Tyler, City of Tyler Med · filed 2024-05-22(d)

Thus, as the Texas Supreme Court explained, an appellate court has jurisdiction once the trial court certifies an interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(d) because that permission to appeal is all that Section 51.014(d) requires.

Section 51.014(d) permits review of the appealed order, including issues fairly included in its controlling legal question.

Oxy USA WTP LP v. Benjamin Mendez Bringas, Manuel Mendez Bringas and Rene Mendez Bringas · filed 2024-07-09(d)

While a controlling legal issue must be involved to secure a permissive appeal, the order itself is on appeal, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure preclude strict construction of issues presented on appeal.

In a permissive interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reviews the order and may address subsidiary issues fairly included in the controlling legal issue.

Oxy USA WTP LP v. Benjamin Mendez Bringas, Manuel Mendez Bringas and Rene Mendez Bringas · filed 2024-07-18(d)

While a controlling legal issue must be involved to secure a permissive appeal, the order itself is on appeal, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure preclude strict construction of issues presented on appeal.

An interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion requires the appellate court to resolve a standing challenge before reaching the motion’s merits, even when the denial of a separate plea to the jurisdiction is not appealable.

Texas Right to Life and John Seago v. Allison Van Stean; Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health; Planned Pa · filed 2024-11-22(a)(12)

It follows that jurisdiction must be addressed in a properly filed interlocutory appeal, regardless of the order appealed. See Rusk State Hosp., 392 S.W.3d at 95. Thus, the fact that TRTL could formally appeal only the order denying its TCPA motion was no bar to the court of appeals’ determining whether the plaintiffs had standing.

Section 51.014(d) requires the trial court to identify a controlling question of law for a permissive appeal, but the appellate court’s review is not limited to answering that question.

The Mabee Ranch Royalty Partnership, L.P.; 315 MR, Inc.; 93 JM, Inc.; Rock River Minerals, LP; Primitive Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2024-12-05(d)

In a permissive appeal, it is necessary for the trial court to identify at least one such controlling question as a prerequisite to the appeal. ... Thus, our task is not limited to answering the controlling questions.

Section 51.014(a)(17) limits interlocutory review to a contractor’s summary judgment motion based on Section 97.002 immunity; it does not permit review of a separate no-evidence motion.

Webber, LLC v. Mubarak · filed 2025-03-06(a)(17)

Because Webber filed the present interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(17), we may review only the denial of Webber’s traditional motion for summary judgment based on statutory immunity, and we may not address Webber’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment or any arguments concerning Mubarak’s alleged failure to produce evidence of Webber’s knowledge.

Section 51.014(a)(8) does not permit review of a capacity issue in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction because capacity does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction.

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And th · filed 2025-04-16(a)(8)

Because the issue of capacity does not bear on the question of whether the trial court erred in denying appellants’ pleas to the jurisdiction and would not support a reversal of the trial court’s ruling even were the City’s capacity arguments meritorious, we lack appellate jurisdiction to address the City’s second issue in this interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(17) limits interlocutory review to the immunity issue when a contractor appeals the denial of summary judgment.

Big Creek Construction, Ltd. v. Marco and Marina Sustaita, Nyssa Johnson, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Darr · filed 2025-07-31(a)(17)

However, due to the limited nature of Section 51.014 governing interlocutory appeals, we have jurisdiction to review the issue of immunity only.

Section 51.014(a)(8) limits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a governmental entity’s plea to the jurisdiction to issues of subject-matter jurisdiction.

City of Kyle, Texas v. the State of Texas, Ex Rel. 1200 S. Old Stagecoach Road, LLC · filed 2025-10-30(a)(8)

Because this is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction, our appellate jurisdiction is limited to issues of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a)(1) permits review of an order appointing a receiver or trustee, but not later orders concerning the receiver’s actions, compensation, or discharge.

Abrahiem Sarwar as Administrator of the Estate of Mohammad Sarwar and Acting Derivatively on Behalf of MSI Rittiman, Inc · filed 2025-12-03(a)(1)

An interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code provides appellate jurisdiction only to review the order appointing a receiver or trustee, not to subsequent orders concerning the receiver’s actions, compensation or discharge.

Section 51.014(d) permits review of issues pertinent to a certified controlling question, but does not extend the appeal to unrelated rulings in the same order.

MRC Permian Company/Point Energy Partners Permian LLC; TJ Bar, LLC; Tubb Memorial, an Oregon Limited Partnership; Plains · filed 2025-12-09(d)

Thus, when a trial court enters an omnibus order containing multiple rulings, but only certifies certain rulings as involving a controlling legal question for purposes of a permissive appeal, an appellate court acts properly in declining to consider issues that do not relate to the certified question.

Section 51.014(d) limits a permissive appeal to the controlling legal questions identified for immediate review.

Encino Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Sergio Santos, Anne Santos, Billy Limmer, Brendan M. Hiers, Karen R. Hiers, · filed 2026-01-07(d)

In this case, the controlling questions of law identified in the trial court’s order are: (1) whether a statute of limitations applies to the Association’s declaratory judgment claim; and (2) if it does, whether the limitations period began to run in 2003 when the Association’s management company learned of the failure to timely file the annexation documents in the real property records, or in June 2019 when the appellees refused to sign the consent to annexation form. Our review is limited to these issues. The merits of the Association’s claim are beyond the scope of this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(17) permits an interlocutory appeal of a contractor’s summary-judgment ruling based on section 97.002, but does not permit review of a separate evidentiary objection.

Big Creek Construction, LTD. v. Jim Sinkule, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Brent Sinkule, Carlos Cross, · filed 2026-01-29(a)(17)

This issue—based on the argument that an affidavit was inadmissible and thus improperly considered—is not an assertion of immunity. We conclude that under the plain language of Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(17), we lack interlocutory-appellate jurisdiction over Big Creek’s second issue.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal to consider challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction that were not raised in the plea decided by the trial court.

Garcia v. Kubosh · filed 2012-06-18(a)(8)

The Court’s opinion, which I authored, holds that this Court’s prior precedent binds us to conclude that we have interlocutory jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(8) of the CPRC to consider challenges to subject-matter ... jurisdiction not raised in the plea to the jurisdiction decided by the trial court.

Section 51.014(a)(8) allows an appellate court reviewing a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction to consider immunity grounds first raised on interlocutory appeal.

Dallas County v. Logan, Roy · filed 2014-01-09(a)(8)

Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8). “[S]ection 51.014(a) does not preclude an appellate court from having to consider immunity grounds first asserted on interlocutory appeal.”

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits review of a justiciable controversy argument on interlocutory appeal when it is part of a standing ground raised in the trial court.

the City of San Antonio, Texas v. the Rogers Shavano Ranch, Ltd., Rogers 1604 Commercial, Ltd., Bitterblue, Inc., and De · filed 2012-08-29(a)(8)

It is apparent, however, that the City’s assertion that there is no “justiciable controversy” is part and parcel of its standing argument that there is no “real controversy,” and that the Appellees, as neither owners, permit applicants, nor successors ... in interest, have no “justiciable interest” in the outcome of this lawsuit; it is not a wholly unrelated ground for the plea to the jurisdiction that is being raised for the first time on appeal.

Section 51.014 permits an interlocutory appeal when a trial court implicitly denies a covered motion by deferring its ruling until after the close of evidence at trial.

Azteca International Corporation D/B/A Azteca America, Stations Group, LLC, Northstar McAllen License, LLC, TV Azteca, S · filed 2022-12-29(a)(6), (12)

Because a summary judgment motion is intended to dispose of claims prior to hearing testimony or receiving evidence at trial, by suspending its ruling on appellants’ summary judgment motion until “after the close of evidence at trial,” the trial court implicitly denied the motion. ... Accordingly, having found an implicit denial of appellants’ motion, we conclude we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(6) allows an interlocutory appeal from a qualifying summary judgment motion only if the trial court denies it; declining to rule does not qualify.

Komerica Post, LLC and Dong Wook Yang v. Jai Sung Byun and Aesuk Kim Byun · filed 2021-05-06(a)(6)

Therefore, subsection (6) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal because the trial court did not deny Komerica’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 51.014(6) protects a media movant’s opportunity for an interlocutory appeal; a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to rule on a timely summary judgment motion expressly to prevent that appeal.

Grant v. Wood · filed 1995-12-22(6)

Relators propose the following abuse-of-discretion standard: It is a clear abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse to rule on a timely submitted motion for summary judgment when the trial court's express purpose in refusing to rule is to preclude the movant from perfecting a statutory interlocutory appeal. We conclude that this is a correct statement of the law and adopt this standard.

Section 51.014(a)(5) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal when the summary judgment motion rests on limitations rather than an assertion of immunity.

Information Referral Resource Assistance, Inc. v. Cantu · filed 2010-09-17(a)(5)

Accordingly, the motion does not fall within section 51.014(a)(5) as a "motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity."

Section 51.014(3) permits an appeal from an order certifying or refusing to certify a class even when the certification order calls the class temporary.

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. · filed 1996-07-25(3)

Thus, the language found in the various orders identifying the group as a "temporary class" has no meaning beyond that provided in the statute. To adopt the argument of appellee in this regard would eviscerate TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(3) (Vernon Supp.1996), which expressly permits an appeal from an order that certifies or refuses to certify a class.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits review of matters encompassed by a class-certification order, including whether a justiciable controversy exists, but not the merits of the class claims or their likelihood of success.

In Re MMO · filed 1998-10-28(a)(3)

In an appeal under section 51.014(a)(3), we do not consider questions related to the merits of the class claims, nor do we consider the probability of the class's success on the merits. ... We may, however, consider all matters pertaining to class certification encompassed within the certification order. ... One matter necessarily encompassed by any class-certification order is an implied or express finding that a justiciable controversy exists.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits a party to challenge all matters pertaining to class certification in an interlocutory appeal.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lopez, Alicia · filed 2001-02-01(a)(3)

A party may complain of all matters pertaining to a class action certification by interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order certifying or refusing to certify a class, but not from an order refusing to decertify one.

Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson · filed 2001-09-27(a)(3)

The Legislature could have added similar language to Section 51.014(a)(3) and permitted appeals from orders refusing to decertify a class, but did not.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order decertifying a class.

Wood v. Victoria Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2001-10-25(a)(3)

Thus, we hold that an order decertifying a class is appealable under section 51.014(a)(3).

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an appellate court hearing a class certification appeal to decide whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the certification order.

Shell Co. Mobile Oil v. Shores · filed 2004-01-08(a)(3)

W e hold that we have jurisdiction in this section 51.014(a)(3) class certification appeal to address whether the statutory probate court has subject matter jurisdiction over the class claims.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction; an order that restrains no action is not a temporary injunction.

in Re Gray Law, L.L.P. · filed 2006-04-20(a)(4)

If the trial court’s order is a temporary injunction, as Gray Law argues, then Gray Law has a legal remedy available to it in the form of an interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2005) (authorizing appeal from an interlocutory order that grants or refuses a temporary injunction). However, we decline to construe the order as a temporary injunction because it does not restrain Gray Law from taking any action; it merely approves the receiver’s final sale report, discharges the receiver from further responsibility, and orders the sale proceeds to be distributed “by agreement of the parties or order of the Court.”

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an interlocutory appeal concerning class certification in which a party may challenge the proposed class representatives' standing.

in Re Christus Health and Christus Health Southeast Texas, Individually and D/B/A Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital · filed 2005-09-22(a)(3)

Interlocutory appeal is available to review issues relating to the proposed class action. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2005). If the trial court certifies a class, the hospital may challenge the patients' standing in an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying class certification even if the order lacks findings required by Rule 42.

Rodriguez v. medicredit.com, Inc. · filed 2006-08-31(a)(3)

More importantly, regardless of whether rule 42(c)(1)(D) was applicable, we conclude that any failure to fully comply with the requirements of the rule does not affect the finality of the order or our jurisdiction. Under section 51.014(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, this Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals of district court orders that certify or refuse to certify a class in a suit brought under rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Section 51.014(4)’s general authorization for interlocutory appeals yields to the Family Code’s specific bar on appeals from temporary orders in divorce proceedings.

Frank E. Marley, Jr. v. Connie A. Stirgus Marley · filed 2006-10-27(4)

Because section 6.507 of the Family Code applies specifically to divorce proceedings, it prevails over the general application of section 51.014 of the CPRC.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s class certification order, but does not authorize an appeal of an arbitrator’s class determination award or a trial court’s refusal to review that award.

in Re: John M. O'Quinn, PC, D/B/A O'Quinn & Laminack · filed 2006-12-20(a)(3)

An interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court that certifies or refuses to certify a class is appealable. ... However, there is no similar provision authorizing an interlocutory appeal of either a class certification award by an arbitration panel or a decision by the trial court not to review the merits of a class certification award.

Section 51.014(a)(3) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to decertify a class.

Rainbow Group, Ltd. v. Wagoner · filed 2007-03-01(a)(3)

We lack jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of the November 23 order because an order denying a motion to decertify a class is not within the scope of the statute authorizing interlocutory appeals.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits interlocutory review of both grounds for a class certification order when the trial court certified the class under Rule 42 and the Insurance Code.

Farmers Group, Inc. v. Lubin · filed 2007-04-27(a)(3)

We cannot construe section 51.014 so strictly as to render it futile. [10] As the parties sought and the trial court granted certification under both Rule 42 and the Insurance Code, we have jurisdiction to review both grounds for that order.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.

Coon v. Umphrey · filed 2009-09-24(a)(4)

Because the trial court denied a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, that part of the trial court's order of May 28, 2009, is appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(9) bars an interlocutory appeal when the trial court grants an extension to cure a deficient expert report.

Michael Morris, M.D.'s v. Umberson · filed 2009-11-05(a)(9)

Because section 51.014(a)(9) plainly prohibits interlocutory appeals of orders granting extensions , we agree with Umberson that Dr. Morris’s appeal is premature and hold that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits interlocutory appeals from orders certifying or refusing to certify a class, but does not permit an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss or decertify a class.

in Re: Nationwide Credit, Inc. · filed 2010-02-18(a)(3)

Although interlocutory appeals are permitted from orders certifying or refusing to certify a class, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(3) (Vernon 2008), such appeals are not explicitly permitted from the denial of a motion to dismiss a class action or decertify a class.

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an interlocutory appeal of a class certification order, providing an adequate appellate remedy that precludes mandamus review of that order.

in Re: Obra Homes, Inc. · filed 2010-06-03(a)(3)

Because section 51.014(a)(3) provides Obra Homes with an adequate remedy on appeal regarding the trial court's interlocutory order certifying the Gonzalez class, we will not analyze their issues pertaining to the class certification within the context of their petition for writ of mandamus.

Section 51.014(a)(7) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a Rule 120a special appearance challenging personal jurisdiction.

James W. Trenz and Terrane Associates, Inc. v. Peter Paul Petroleum Company and Posse Energy, Ltd. · filed 2012-08-09(a)(7)

Section 51.014(a)(7) endows us with jurisdiction over appeals from the grant or denial of a party’s objection to personal jurisdiction through special appearance under rule 120a.

Section 51.014(a)(3) allows an appeal as of right from an interlocutory order granting or denying class certification.

Clark v. ConocoPhillips Company · filed 2015-04-30(a)(3)

These cases are distinguishable because unlike in the federal system, interlocutory orders of Texas courts granting or denying class certification are appealable as of right. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(3).

Section 51.014(a)(3) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order that neither certifies a class nor fundamentally changes it.

Charles O. "Chuck" Grigson, Gerald Hooks, and Leslie Hooks v. State · filed 2015-08-28(a)(3)

However, the record reflects that the district court’s order is interlocutory and not appealable because it did not certify a class or make any change to the “fundamental nature” of the class.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a party’s request to opt out of a class action.

Dale Roush, Individually and as Trustee of the Dale Roush Assets Trust v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Joel H · filed 2018-03-23

There is no interlocutory appeal from an order denying a party the right to opt out of a class. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss, but not from an order granting one.

Chang Ho Song v. Hoon Ku Lee, Yung Sang Lee AKA Raymond Lee, and Hung Ju Park · filed 2018-12-06(a)(12)

Chapter 51 of the civil practice and remedies code provides such an exception for an interlocutory order that “denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003 [of the TCPA].” Id. § 51.014(a)(12) (emphasis added); see id. § 27.003. ... Moreover, the order granted the dismissal of Song’s claims for defamation and libel. Such an order is not one that is immediately appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(1) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order appointing a receiver, but not from an order appointing a successor receiver.

Boze v. Cartwright · filed 2020-12-31(a)(1)

While there is interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over an order appointing a receiver, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(1), there is no interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over an order appointing a successor receiver.

Section 51.014(a)(3) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to amend a class definition when the order does not alter the fundamental nature of the class.

Lon Smith & Associates, Inc., and A-1 Systems, Inc. D/B/A Lon Smith Roofing and Construction v. Joe Key and Stacci Key · filed 2022-04-14(a)(3)

No Texas statute authorizes jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to amend or modify a class definition. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.014, 51.016.

Section 51.014(a)(7) permits an interlocutory appeal of an order stating that a defendant’s special appearance is waived and overruled.

Witty Yeti, LLC, and John Doe v. Plummer · filed 2022-08-03(a)(7)

The appealed order falls within Section 51.014(a)(7) because it explicitly states that “the special appearance is waived,” and “overruled.”

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a request that substantively seeks a temporary injunction, including an order requiring production of documents.

In the Matter of the Estate of Soledad Banegas Shultz v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-05-30(a)(4)

Instead, he clearly asked the trial court for an injunctive order requiring Rodriguez to produce his file. Because Richard has requested and failed to obtain injunctive relief before the trial court, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a)(5) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order denying an individual's assertion of immunity even when the assertion was raised in a motion to dismiss rather than a motion for summary judgment.

City of Houston v. Tran · filed 2025-01-28(a)(5)

For the purposes of our appellate jurisdiction, it is not determinative that Coughlen sought dismissal of Tran’s claim against him by filing a motion to dismiss rather than a motion for summary judgment, as referenced in Section 51.014(a)(5).

Section 51.014(a)(3) permits an interlocutory appeal from a Rule 42 class certification ruling, including a challenge to the sufficiency of the discovery underlying that ruling.

In Re Bertha Arce, Relator v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-01-31(a)(3)

And if Respondent’s certification decision is adverse to Relator, she will have the opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of the underlying discovery as part of an accelerated interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(3).

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to transfer venue.

Epege v. Volvo Financial Services; Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc. · filed 2026-02-05(a)(4)

And section 51.014(a)(4) does not concern venue determinations.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of a temporary order founded in the Family Code rather than Chapter 65.

Hendren v. Lazar · filed 2025-03-10(a)(4)

On consideration of the record here, we conclude the challenged orders are similarly founded in the Family Code, and not Chapter 65, as we found in Hendren I. ... Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Hendren’s appeal as an interlocutory appeal under § 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction; delaying trial while the appeal is pending does not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction.

Leo Bienati, Theresa Pham, Carlos Lacayo and Andres Ruzo v. Cloister Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-06-07(a)(4)

A party is entitled to appeal an interlocutory order that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(4). ... A concerted effort to improve judicial management, however, does not remove an appellate court’s jurisdiction over an appeal from a temporary injunction merely because trial on the merits is delayed. Rather, the appellate court retains jurisdiction over the appeal until a final judgment moots consideration of it.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction.

Right-Way Sand Co. A/K/A Right Way Sand, Inc., RPRS Investments, Ltd. and Adloy, LLC v. South Texas Pipelines LLC and HS · filed 2024-04-30(a)(4)

The Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes an interlocutory appeal of an order that grants or refuses a temporary injunction, but it does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of a partial summary judgment or a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction, unless the plea was asserted by governmental unit. Compare TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(4), with id. § 51.014(a)(8). We agree that we lack jurisdiction to review the trial court’s interlocutory, partial summary judgment, but we conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider the trial court’s denial of a temporary injunction.

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

Fuel 2 Go, LLC, and D&R USA Enterprises, Inc. v. Mesa Fortune, Inc., D/B/A Mesa Food Mart Inc. & SCF RC Funding IV LLC · filed 2023-10-26(a)(4)

While an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction is authorized by Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4), no statutory provision authorizes an appeal from the grant of a TRO.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from the parts of an order that grant a temporary injunction, determined by the order’s substance, character, and function.

Shawn Deane Gruss, as Independent of the Estate of Maurita J. Gallagher And Nuclear Sources and Services, Inc. v. Gary W · filed 2023-02-14(a)(4)

Under the plain text of the Judgments and considering the Judgments’ substance, character, and function, the second sentence of paragraph 6 and paragraph 7 of the Judgments grant a new temporary injunction and are subject to an interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(4) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, including when the motion challenges the injunction as void.

Comack Investment, L.P. v. M.A.R. Designs & Construction, Inc. · filed 2023-04-06(a)(4)

This conclusion is also supported by the structure of § 51.014(a)(4), which expressly contemplates an appeal from either an order that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction” or one that “grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.”

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction order, but a severance order that grants or denies no injunctive relief does not qualify.

in Re the Carolyn S. Clark Irrevocable Living Trust U/T/A July 28, 2017 · filed 2022-10-20(a)(4)

But that’s not the character or function of the order of severance before us here. The trial court’s July 2022 order does not restrain or enforce any actions by anyone. It also does not affect an earlier order the trial court signed on October 8, 2019, in which the trial court did grant the parties’ request for temporary injunctive relief. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (providing for appeal from an interlocutory order that grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction).

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order that merely compels compliance with an existing injunction without granting or modifying it.

Egypt Land Developments, LP v. AXA Seguros, S.A. De C v. Maria Louisa Mireles-Poulat, Ricardo Mohamed Ibrahim-Hakim, Sam · filed 2022-08-31(a)(4)

The August 20, 2021 Order did not grant or modify an injunction and accordingly, is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction order that substantively modifies the injunction; extending an injunction until a new trial setting alone does not qualify.

American Medical Home Health Services, LLC, Hub City Home Health, Inc. D/B/A American Medical Home Health Services, Amer · filed 2022-06-29(a)(4)

But a party may appeal from an interlocutory order of the trial court that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4). “Texas courts have construed this provision to allow interlocutory review of an order making a substantive modification to a temporary injunction.” ... We therefore dismiss appellants’ appeal of the orders extending the previous injunctions for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal only from the temporary-injunction portion of an order that also grants other, nonappealable relief.

in the Matter of Bumstead Family Irrevocable Trust · filed 2022-03-10(a)(4)

To the extent the trial court grants a temporary injunction as well as non-injunctive relief that is not appealable, § 51.014(a)(4) provides for an interlocutory appeal only from the part of the order granting the temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a temporary injunction.

Jason Ben Bryant and Calyn Flores v. Jack W. Hawthorne and Karen Hawthorne · filed 2021-10-20(a)(4)

An order that grants or denies a temporary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (West Supp. 2020). However, Appellants did not perfect an appeal of the temporary injunction, and thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the trial court’s alleged abuses of discretion in the temporary injunction hearing are waived.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order refusing a temporary injunction.

in Re Pedro D. Lopez, as Next Friend of P.L.L., R.L., M.A.L., and M.L., Minors. · filed 2021-09-08(a)(4)

Relator has a right to interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s refusal to issue a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, providing an adequate remedy by appeal that precludes mandamus relief.

in Re Paris Independent School District · filed 2021-11-05(a)(4)

Because PISD may appeal the temporary injunction as provided for by Section 51.014(a)(4), it has an adequate remedy by appeal and has not established its entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order requiring rent payments into the court registry when the order changes rather than preserves the status quo.

Hernandez v. US Bank Trust NA as Trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust · filed 2016-09-14(a)(4)

In his response, Hernandez claims that the order is appealable under Section 51.014 because it is a temporary injunction. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4). ... Thus, the trial court’s order is not a temporary injunction because it does not have the effect of preserving the status quo.

Section 51.014(a)(4) allows a person who is personally aggrieved by a temporary injunction to appeal it even if the person is not a party to the injunction.

Q'Max America. Inc., D/B/A Q' Max America Solutions, Inc., D/B/A Q'Max Solutions, D/B/A Q'Max Solutions, Inc. v. Screen · filed 2016-03-01(a)(4)

An appellant need not be a party to a temporary injunction in order to have standing to appeal it, so long as the appellant is personally aggrieved by the entry of the temporary injunction and therefore, has a justiciable interest in the controversy.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal of an order concerning an equitable temporary injunction or a motion to dissolve one.

Stewart Beach Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Gili N Prop Investments, LLC Barak Resheff and Rami Barnea · filed 2015-11-17(a)(4)

Thus the language “as provided by Chapter 65” refers to any injunction “of equity” and grants us jurisdiction to hear an appeal of any such injunction or of a motion to dissolve such an injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction; an order granting a permanent injunction while leaving claims unresolved is not appealable under it.

El Caballero Ranch, Inc. A/K/A El Caballero, LLC and Laredo Marine, LLC v. Grace River Ranch, LLC [ and County of La Sal · filed 2015-10-21(a)(4)

We hold the order challenged in this appeal is a permanent, not a temporary, injunction. Because the challenged order grants a permanent injunction but fails to dispose of all claims before the trial court, it is not final and therefore is unappealable.

Section 51.014(a)(4) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, but a stay of the case is not a refusal when no temporary-injunction motion was filed.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (Delaware), CB&I UK Limited, and CB&I Colombiana S.A. v. David A. Delman and Hogan Lovells · filed 2015-04-23(a)(4)

Although CB&I requested a temporary injunction in its pleadings, the record does not include a supporting affidavit or a request for a hearing date, and CB&I concedes that no motion for temporary injunction had been filed when the trial court signed the order CB&I seeks to appeal. ... We conclude that the trial court’s order is not subject to appeal as an order denying a temporary injunction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction.

Bernadette Morales and Sandra Gonzalez v. Omar H. Saenz, Elizabeth M. Saenz, Margarita Lopez Perez and Alfredo Morales · filed 2015-02-26(a)(4)

Section 51.014(a)(4) of the civil practice and remedies code permits an interlocutory appeal from an order that grants or refuses a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction, even when the order is titled “Permanent Injunction.”

Brett Oil Company, Cuarenta Star Corporation, and Twenty Oaks of Texas, Inc., Dba Twenty Oaks Corp. v. First Source Ener · filed 2009-06-17(a)(4)

We hold that this is a temporary injunction and is an appealable interlocutory order under § 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction; an order that grants no temporary injunction is not appealable under it.

International Bank of Commerce, D/B/A Ibc David Guerra, Nelson Munoz, and Adrian Villarreal v. Mar-Rox, Inc. Mark A. Can · filed 2008-05-02(a)(4)

Because the trial court did not grant a temporary injunction, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal of an order enforcing a compromise merely because a party characterizes it as a temporary injunction.

Qwest Communications International Inc. and Qwest Communications Corporation v. AT&T Corp. and AT&T Communications of th · filed 1999-01-14(a)(4)

We hold that the February 17 order is not a temporary injunction, but a non-appealable interlocutory order enforcing a compromise and settlement among the parties.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an appeal from a temporary injunction but does not make an accompanying partial summary judgment appealable.

Bobbitt v. Cantu · filed 1999-05-20(a)(4)

We hold, therefore, that the district court's grant of partial summary judgment is non-appealable, "although it comes along with the interlocutory order of temporary injunction."

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal when dismissal for lack of standing effectively denies a requested temporary injunction.

Hotze v. Brown · filed 1999-12-09(a)(4)

By dismissing him, the court effectively denied his motion for a temporary and permanent injunction. ... Accordingly, we assert jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(4) to consider Hotze's standing.

Section 51.014(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, but that appeal does not permit review of a separate interlocutory order voiding a foreclosure sale.

Kaplan v. Tiffany Development Corp. and Leonard W. Garner Individually and as Sole Shareholder and Director of Ti · filed 2001-07-19(4)

However, an appeal of a temporary injunction is not a vehicle which vests the appellate court with jurisdiction to address interlocutory matters outside the scope of section 51.014. ... Because the order voiding the foreclosure sale is interlocutory and not a final and appealable order, we hold we do not have jurisdiction to address appellant's second issue.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, but an order merely enforcing a Rule 11 agreement does not qualify.

Prakash Patel and Forney Hospitality, Inc. v. Chase Merchant Services, LLC · filed 2001-10-24(a)(4)

Again, rather than "enjoining" Patel in any fashion, the July 10 order merely enforced terms to which Patel had agreed. Having rejected Patel's contention that the July 10 order granted injunctive relief, we hold that the order is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a temporary injunction, but an order suspending visitation is not a temporary injunction.

Fantroy v. Carolyn May Howard-Fantroy and in the Interest of R.F. a Child · filed 2002-08-07(a)(4)

Section 51.014(a)(4) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows for an interlocutory appeal of an order granting (or denying) a temporary injunction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4). However, the order suspending visitation is not a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction order governed by Family Code § 6.507.

Van Gentry v. Gentry · filed 2002-10-24(a)(4)

The predecessor statute to Family Code Section 6.507 has been interpreted to control over Section 51.014(a)(4) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ... Therefore, Section 6.507 expressly provides that the order is not subject to interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order modifying a temporary injunction.

Mohammed Atique Ahmed & Farheen Ahmed v. Shimi Ventures, L.P. & Beltway Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 2003-01-31(a)(4)

Consistent with Martin , we hold that we have jurisdiction to review an order modifying a temporary injunction by interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a ruling on a temporary injunction.

Cyril L. Smith v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles · filed 2003-11-20(a)(4)

When a trial court rules on a temporary injunction, the dissatisfied litigant has two procedural options to challenge that ruling: (1) appeal from the interlocutory order or (2) seek a trial on the merits. ... Here, Appellant did not file an appeal from the interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction, including a challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction to issue it.

Charles Glen Hyde, Hyde-Way, Inc. and Aviation Utilities Services, Inc. v. Jimmy Ray and Trent Cragin · filed 2005-12-08(a)(4)

Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(4) specifically allows an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or refusing a temporary injunction. (footnote: 6) That section also allows an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a “governmental unit.” (footnote: 7) On the other hand, orders overruling pleas to the jurisdiction by private parties are generally interlocutory and unappealable until a final judgment has been rendered . (footnote: 8) Appellants are appealing from the order granting the temporary injunction, not the plea to the jurisdiction. Significantly, Appellants are not questioning the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the entire case. Rather, Appellants are only questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction to issue the injunction. Thus, this issue is not an impermissible appeal of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction, and this court must decide whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a protective order that neither grants nor refuses a temporary injunction.

Dave Dalal Smith v. Smith · filed 2006-12-07(a)(4)

The order neither grants nor refuses a temporary injunction, and is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order directing the clerk to release funds from the court’s registry because that order is not a temporary injunction.

3-T Exploration, Inc. v. Greyfox Energy Partners LP · filed 2007-01-25(a)(4)

In their notice of appeal, Appellants stated that the order to release funds is appealable under section 51.014(a)(4) of the civil practice and remedies code, which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing to grant a temporary injunction or overruling a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. ... The order to release funds does none of those things.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction; denying summary judgment that seeks a permanent injunction does not qualify.

City of Reno, Texas v. Todd Stephens D/B/A Stephens and Sons · filed 2008-06-18(a)(4)

Our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is limited to those matters allowed by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2007). Had this been an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the governmental unit, it would be appealable. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8). Had this been a denial of a request for a temporary injunction, it would be appealable. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4). This is neither.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when an order merely extends a temporary injunction to a new trial date without substantively modifying it.

in Re: Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Mira Enterprises, Inc., and Mark Stallings, Inc. · filed 2008-08-28(a)(4)

The lone change in the trial court's order was to extend the duration of the injunction until the new trial setting of November 10, 2008. ... Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the order falls outside the ambit of section 51.014(a)(4) of the civil practice and remedies code, and that we do not have jurisdiction to review it.

Section 51.014(a)(4) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction.

in Re Robert v. Holland, Jr. · filed 2009-10-01(a)(4)

Section 51.014(a)(4) specifically provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction.

in Re: Dr. Shirley Pigott · filed 2010-03-17(a)(4)

One such statutory exception is an order granting a temporary injunction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008) (authorizing appeal from interlocutory order granting temporary injunction).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction.

Estate of Carmen Del Fierro De Garcia · filed 2010-08-27(a)(4)

Section 51.014(a)(4) of the civil practice and remedies code provides that a party may appeal from an interlocutory order granting or refusing a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an agreed order releasing property subject to a temporary injunction when the order does not dissolve the injunction.

Negri v. Karen Jack, Individually and as of the Estate of Shirley Cowan · filed 2010-12-15(4)

We need go no further than to observe that the agreed order is neither a final order nor a type of interlocutory order that the legislature has made appealable. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(4) (West 2008) (allowing appeal from district court's interlocutory order granting or refusing temporary injunction or granting or overruling motion to dissolve temporary injunction). The agreed order does not dissolve the temporary injunction, and to the extent that Negri is complaining that the temporary injunction was granted in the first place, he did not timely perfect such an appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal of a discovery and sanctions order merely because a party argues that another court’s injunction prevents compliance.

George Ackel, III, Alana Ackel Tallo, Adam Ackel and Alexander Ackel v. Jerilyn Lea Ackel and Louis Ditta Temporary Admi · filed 2011-10-06(a)(4)

The Ackels’ appeal does not constitute an appeal of an order that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction” as contemplated by section 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction, but an order requiring funds to be deposited in the court registry is not appealable as a temporary injunction.

in Re Grupo Consejero Mundial, S.A. De C v. · filed 2012-03-29(a)(4)

To the extent the Orders require the Collateral Defendants to deposit in the court’s registry any money that they owe to Grupo S.A., the relief awarded by the trial court is not in the nature of injunctive relief and is therefore not subject to interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction order or an order on a motion to dissolve one; an appeal from the dissolution ruling does not bring the original injunction before the court.

George M. Bishop, as Substitute Trustee and F.E.T.C. Corp v. Mary Beth Clawson and John Riddle · filed 2012-01-05(a)(4)

An accelerated appeal may be taken within 20 days from an interlocutory order that grants or denies (1) a temporary injunction; or (2) a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. ... The trial court did not issue a new temporary injunction; instead, it reinstated the previously granted injunction by reconsidering its prior dissolution order and denying Bishop’s motion to dissolve. ... Thus, our review is limited to the trial court’s denial of Bishop’s motion to dissolve.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction.

in Re Efrem D. Sewell and Milo Shepard · filed 2012-01-26(a)(4)

Section 51.014(a)(4) specifically provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014 allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction or granting or overruling a motion to dissolve one.

in Re: Frank Keathley · filed 2012-02-01

Litigants have a right to an interlocutory appeal of a trial court order granting or refusing a temporary injunction or granting or overruling a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order refusing a temporary injunction.

in Re: The Crawford Family Farm Partnership · filed 2012-03-08(a)(4)

In this case, the order at bar is one refusing a temporary injunction. Such an order is explicitly appealable. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (West Supp. 2011). The remedy of mandamus is therefore not available.

Section 51.014 permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction or granting or overruling a motion to dissolve one.

Castleberry v. New Hampshire Insurance Company · filed 2012-02-01(a)(4)

Litigants have a right to an interlocutory appeal of a trial court order granting or refusing a temporary injunction or granting or overruling a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2011). Because Keathley has an adequate remedy at law, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order issuing a permanent injunction.

in Re Dennis L. Miga · filed 2012-03-08(a)(4)

Having held that this injunction is not appealable, we dismiss Miga’s appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction; a permanent injunction enforcing an earlier judgment is not appealable under that provision.

in Re Dennis L. Miga · filed 2012-03-08(a)(4)

Because we believe that the challenged order is a permanent, prohibitory injunction designed to enforce the money judgment previously awarded Jensen, we hold that it is not an appealable order.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, providing an adequate appellate remedy that precludes mandamus relief.

in Re Paul Shkedy, Gary Shkedy and Wraptor Equipment · filed 2012-10-30(a)(4)

An interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction may be appealed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4). ... Therefore, relators are not entitled to mandamus relief because an adequate appellate remedy exists.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal of an order whose character and function make it a temporary injunction, including an order requiring a party to deposit checks into the court registry.

in the Estate of Robert Earl Skinner · filed 2013-10-15(a)(4)

Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s order was an appealable order granting a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits interlocutory review of an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, but review extends only to issues necessary to decide the injunction’s propriety.

Mike Yardeni and Mike Yardeni Family Investments, L.P. v. Maria Lourdes Luna Torres and Kids View Zargosa Center, L.L.C. · filed 2013-12-19(a)(4)

TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4)(West Supp. 2013) provides for limited interlocutory review of any order that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction . . . .” Id. Because the grant of a temporary injunction forms the core of this case, we have jurisdiction to review issues necessary to the resolution of the injunction’s propriety. Id. To the extent that any party raises issues outside the scope of the injunction order, we are without jurisdiction to decide those issues unless authorized to do so by another provision of TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) et seq.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction.

in Re Wyatt Services, L.P. · filed 2014-04-04(a)(4)

As for Wyatt's effort to have us review, through mandamus, the temporary injunction issued by the trial court, we note that such can generally occur through an interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (a) (4) (West Supp. 2013) (stating that “[a] person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court . . . that . . . grants or refuses a temporary injunction. . . .”). Wyatt need not wait for arbitration to occur or the trial court to finally adjudicate the equitable claims before it can cause the matter to be considered.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction once the trial court signs a written order.

David Reyes and Sonia Valenzuela v. Burrus · filed 2014-05-14(a)(4)

In the event the trial court enters a written temporary injunction following the dismissal of this appeal, the appellate timetable will commence on the date the order is signed and a party may pursue an appeal from the order.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction; an order that merely permits a party to act does not qualify.

Panamerican Operating, Inc. v. George Land & Cattle Co., LLC · filed 2014-08-25(a)(4)

This Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory orders granting or refusing a temporary injunction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (West Supp. 2014). ... As the trial court order in this case is not a temporary injunction, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Panamerican’s appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate an agreed order when the order functions as a temporary injunction and the motion functions as a motion to dissolve it.

the City of Houston v. Downstream Environmental, L.L.C. · filed 2014-11-07(a)(4)

Having concluded that the December 2012 order was a temporary injunction, we also conclude that the order denying the City’s motion to vacate was an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. See Qwest, 24 S.W.3d at 336–38. Thus, we have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal from that order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a)(4) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, providing an adequate remedy by appeal that precludes mandamus relief.

in Re Williard Capital Corp. · filed 2016-08-09(a)(4)

Because relator may appeal the temporary injunction as provided for by section 51.014(a)(4), it has an adequate remedy by appeal, and has not established its entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal of an order modifying a temporary injunction; an order that does not modify the injunction is outside that appellate jurisdiction.

West I-10 Volunteer Fire Department v. Harris County Emergency Services District No. 48 · filed 2016-10-13(a)(4)

Because the temporary injunction did not affirmatively grant the Department ownership of the Trucks or a right to possession of the Trucks, the temporary injunction was not modified by the part of the partial-summary-judgment order commanding the Department to turn over the Trucks within five days. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction under Section 51.014.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, providing an adequate remedy by appeal that precludes mandamus relief.

in Re Jeff Fisher · filed 2016-10-20(a)(4)

Because they may appeal the temporary injunction as provided for by section 51.014(a)(4), relators have an adequate remedy by appeal and have not established entitlement to mandamus relief.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a temporary injunction, but the appeal does not bring the merits of the underlying case before the appellate court.

Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan v. State · filed 2016-11-22(a)(4)

In an interlocutory appeal of an order granting or denying a temporary injunction authorized by section 51.014(a)(4) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code “the merits of the underlying case are not presented for appellate review.” Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Tex. 1978).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction.

Pitts v. the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association F/K/A the Bank of New York Trust Co · filed 2017-02-06(a)(4)

An order denying a temporary injunction is subject to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits a person personally aggrieved by a temporary injunction to appeal it even if the person is not a party to the injunction.

SBI Investments, LLC, 2014-1 And L2 Capital LLC v. Quantum Materials Corp. · filed 2018-03-08(a)(4)

A litigant, however, need not be a party to a temporary injunction in order to have standing to appeal it. See Q’Max Am., Inc. v. Screen Logix, LLC, No. 01-15-00319-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 2136, at * 10–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 1, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4) (authorizing “person” to appeal grant or denial of temporary injunction)). A litigant has standing to appeal a temporary injunction if it is “personally aggrieved by the entry of a temporary injunction” so as to have a “justiciable interest in the controversy.” ... Thus, we conclude that appellants generally have standing to appeal the temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not allow an interlocutory appeal of an order advancing contractual attorney’s fees because that order is not a temporary injunction.

David Gunderson, Horace Winchester, Stan Bradshaw, Jerry Williamson, GruenePointe Holdings, LLC, Adora 8, LLC, Adora 9, · filed 2018-09-12(a)(4)

Because an advancement order does not preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the underlying lawsuit, we cannot construe it as a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit review of the merits of an interlocutory summary judgment through a temporary injunction appeal, even if the judgment effectively denies the injunction.

Lantana Ridge Property Owners Association, Inc. v. SJWTX, Inc. D/B/A Canyon Lake Water Service Co. · filed 2019-01-29(a)(4)

Thus, even if the trial court’s summary judgment order “effectively” overruled the Association’s motion for temporary injunction, we do not have jurisdiction over the issues that the Association has raised.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction order, but an order granting complete relief on an advancement claim is not a temporary injunction merely because it requires payment during litigation.

L Series, L.L.C. CKDH, L.L.C. VUE, L.L.C. And CKDH Investments, L.L.C. v. Holt · filed 2019-02-28(a)(4)

Civil practice and remedies code section 51.014 lists certain types of interlocutory orders from which a party may immediately appeal; among these is a trial court’s order granting or refusing a temporary injunction. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4). ... Thus, although the order compels certain conduct during the litigation––the payment of fees and expenses pursuant to Holt’s purported contractual right––it does so not as a merely temporary form of relief pending the outcome of the litigation but as complete relief on Holt’s advancement breach of contract claim.

Section 51.014(a)(4) provides an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, making mandamus relief unavailable when that appeal is an adequate remedy.

in Re: Chris Carter and Karen Ann Pieroni · filed 2019-06-14(a)(4)

Here, there is a specific remedy by interlocutory appeal when a trial court “grants or refuses a temporary injunction.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(4). We must deny mandamus relief.

Section 51.014(a)(4) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction.

Steele v. UG National · filed 2019-09-10(a)(4)

Only the order granting the temporary injunction is subject to interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal of a later temporary injunction order when it substantively modifies the earlier order; an order that merely extends the injunction is not appealable.

Christopher M. Propst and Stride Investments, LLC v. Gregory K. Propst, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Riost · filed 2019-10-31(a)(4)

However, a subsequent temporary injunction order which simply extends the initial temporary injunction is not an appealable interlocutory order. ... Therefore, we only have jurisdiction to review the appeal if we conclude that changes to the June 2018 order were substantive.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an immediate appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction; whether an order qualifies depends on its character and function.

BSR Surf Resort, LLC, Parsons Barefoot Ski Ranch, LLC, BSR Cable Park, Stuart Edward Parsons, Jr. as Trustee for Parsons · filed 2020-11-18(a)(4)

The Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that orders granting or refusing temporary injunctions are immediately appealable. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4). Therefore, the issue we must first decide is whether the trial court’s order is a temporary injunction. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s order is a temporary injunction and that we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction, but a written order granting a Rule 91a dismissal is not such an order merely because temporary relief was also requested.

Day Investment Group, LLC, Jason Martinez, and Angela Yaun v. Colby Dauch, Brianna Dauch and Wayne M. Taylor, as Substit · filed 2021-04-19(a)(4)

We conclude, on the record before us, that the appealed order is not an order denying a request for a temporary injunction but is an unappealable interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss under rule 91a.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, but orders concerning temporary restraining orders are not appealable under it.

Texas Funding Corporation v. Harris County, Texas and Lina Hidalgo in Her Official Capacity as County Judge of Harris Co · filed 2021-04-26(a)(4)

The notice of appeal also cites section 51.014(a)(4), which permits an appeal of an interlocutory order that grants or refuses to grant a temporary injunction, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4). Neither the Order nor any order in the appellate record grants or refuses to grant a temporary injunction. Instead, the record contains orders denying requests for temporary restraining orders. Orders granting or denying requests for temporary restraining orders are not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order that only enforces a Rule 11 agreement and does not modify a temporary injunction.

Glenda Laverne Harris, Individually and as Trustee on Behalf of the Glenda Laverne Harris Living Trust v. Millin · filed 2022-05-12(a)(4)

Therefore, as the trial court’s order enforces only a Rule 11 Agreement, rather than modifying a temporary injunction, we have no jurisdiction under Section 51.014 over this interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction; an order directing partial distribution of estate assets does not qualify merely because it requires action.

In the Matter of the Estate of Jeannette Fenenbock Glenna Gaddy/Mark Fenenbock v. Mark Fenenbock/In the Matter of the Es · filed 2024-03-28(a)(4)

And finally, Glenna seeks to characterize the probate court’s interlocutory order as a “temporary injunction,” which would make it appealable under § 51.014(a)(4) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. ... Accordingly, we reject Glenna’s argument that the probate court’s order of partial distribution can be characterized as an appealable temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a prejudgment enforcement order that functions as a temporary injunction.

Harley Channelview Properties, LLC v. Harley Marine Gulf, LLC · filed 2024-05-10(a)(4)

We hold that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over Channelview’s interlocutory appeal from a prejudgment enforcement order that functions as a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from a temporary ex parte protective order entered under the Texas Family Code rather than Chapter 65.

Taylor v. Melody Ann Norton · filed 2024-09-13(a)(4)

That section permits appeals “from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, statutory probate court, or county court that . . . grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as provided by Chapter 65” of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ... We find that the trial court entered the temporary ex parte protective order under Section 83.001 of the Texas Family Code, not under Chapter 65 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, but an order issued under Family Code Section 105.001 is not appealable under it.

Bob Reeves v. Brady · filed 2025-06-26(a)(4)

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(4) is one such expressly authorized exception. This Section permits an appeal from an interlocutory order that grants a temporary injunction. ... Considering the nature of the petition and the contents of the trial court’s orders, we conclude that the temporary injunction was granted pursuant to Family Code Section 105.001. Because this temporary order was rendered under Section 105.001 of the Family Code, it is not subject to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an immediate interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction, but not a temporary restraining order; the order’s characteristics and function determine which it is.

Spragins v. Lunn 34 Cattle · filed 2026-05-07(a)(4)

A temporary injunction is subject to immediate interlocutory appeal, but a temporary restraining order is not.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of an order disbursing funds deposited by agreement in a court registry.

Cisneros v. Claudia Roldan and Clarot Trucking and Equipment Services, LLC · filed 2026-05-27(a)(4)

Because section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize interlocutory appellate review of an order disbursing funds deposited by agreement in the court registry, we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction; an order merely enforcing a Rule 11 agreement does not qualify when it is not bound to the merits of the parties’ claims.

Atmos Energy Corporation v. DPC Parker Properties, LLC and Doss Properties Company, Ltd. · filed 2026-06-04(a)(4)

In sum, because the trial court’s order merely enforces the terms of the parties’ Rule 11 agreement and is not inextricably bound with the merits of the parties’ claims, it does not function as a temporary injunction.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order requiring a party to deposit funds into the court registry because that order is not a temporary injunction.

in Re: G-M Water Supply Corporation · filed 2016-11-22(a)(4)

We have held that such an order is not a temporary injunction. ... Consequently, in courts reaching that conclusion, interlocutory appeal is not available for such an order.

Section 51.014(f) makes a permitted interlocutory appeal subject to the rules for accelerated appeals.

Carmichael Family Trust v. Krone Medical Properties · filed 2016-01-25(f)

The appeal will be governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(f); Tex. R. App. P. 28.1, 28.3(k).

An appeal from an order granting a governmental unit's plea to the jurisdiction is accelerated under section 51.014(a)(8).

Marvinell Brown v. Texas Education Agency and the Houston Independent School District · filed 2000-11-16(a)(8)

Because the granting of a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit is an accelerated appeal, Brown had to file her notice of appeal within twenty days after the date the trial court signed the order. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2000).

Appeals under subsection (a)(8) from orders on governmental units’ pleas to the jurisdiction are accelerated and subject to the appellate rules’ accelerated deadlines.

Munoz v. the City of Balcones Heights, the City of San Antonio, and the State of Texas · filed 2013-11-20(a)(8)

However, because the orders are interlocutory pursuant to section 51.014(a)(8), any appeal from such orders is accelerated and subject to the accelerated deadlines set forth in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an accelerated appeal from an order granting a plea to the jurisdiction even when unresolved sanctions and attorney’s fee claims prevent the order from being final.

Weiderman v. the City of Arlington, Texas And Jeff Williams, Mayor in His Official Capacity · filed 2015-09-17(a)(8)

However, CFBA and Bussey’s claims for sanctions and attorney’s fees prevented the trial court’s order from being construed as a final judgment; thus, the appeal is accelerated, and Weiderman’s notice of appeal was due March 23, 2015.

Section 51.014(a)(8) requires a notice of interlocutory appeal within twenty days after the trial court denies a plea to the jurisdiction.

the City of El Paso v. Guadalupe Ramirez, Norma Ramirez, Ramirez Pecan Farms, LLC, William H. Boutwell, Jackie Boutwell, · filed 2018-12-27(a)(8)

The City’s notice of interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(8) was due to be filed within twenty days after the trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction on March 28, 2018.

An interlocutory appeal from an order overruling a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction is accelerated.

City of Edinburg v. Permapac Inc. · filed 2022-06-23(8)

An appeal taken from an interlocutory order in such a case shall be accelerated. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(8).

An appeal permitted under § 51.014 is governed by the rules for accelerated appeals.

Renaissance Medical Foundation v. Rebecca Lugo, Individually and as Next Friend of XXXXX XXXXX, a Minor · filed 2022-12-27(f)

The appeal will be governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(f); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1.

Section 51.014(a)(6) can permit an interlocutory appeal by a journalist whose work appears in an online magazine.

Kaufman v. Islamic Society of Arlington · filed 2009-06-25(a)(6)

We believe that these facts and circumstances, establishing (1) Kaufman’s journalistic background and his notoriety outside of the parameters of the article and graphic at issue and (2) Front Page Magazine’s broad readership and its existence as a news/commentary medium that is independent from Kaufman’s articles, are sufficient to qualify Kaufman as a “member of the electronic or print media” and to qualify Front Page Magazine as an electronic or print medium in which Kaufman’s article and graphic appeared.

Section 51.014(a)(6) permits a media defendant to appeal a denial of summary judgment when its motion is based in whole or in part on a free-speech or free-press claim or defense.

Cox Texas Newpapers, L.P. D/B/A the Austin American-Statesman v. Wootten · filed 2001-01-11(a)(6)

However, section 51.014(a)(6) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code gives members of the electronic and print media, and those whose statements have been published in the media, the right to appeal from a denial of a motion for summary judgment that is based in whole or in part on a free-speech or free-press claim or defense.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an individual state officer or employee to appeal an order denying summary judgment based on immunity.

David L. McCartney, M.D. Darryl Williams, M.D. And Dorma Kohler v. Donald R. May, M.D. · filed 2001-06-07(a)(5)

Here, appellants are individuals and fall within the statute.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment based on an assertion of immunity of an individual government officer or employee.

Hays County, Texas v. Hays County Water Planning Partnership · filed 2002-01-17(a)(5)

An interlocutory appeal of a denial of summary judgment must be based on an assertion of immunity of an individual who is an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an appeal from an order denying summary judgment based on an assertion of immunity, including immunity asserted under Government Code section 497.096.

Ricardo Moncada and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Scott A. Brown, Guillermo Martinez, Gabriel Gaytan and G · filed 2006-06-28(a)(5)

Accordingly, we hold that an assertion of the absence of liability pursuant to section 497.096 is an assertion of immunity for purposes of section 51.014(a)(5).

Section 51.014(a)(5) allows an interlocutory appeal from a denied summary-judgment motion only when the motion asserts immunity for an individual who is an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision.

Geffrey Klein, M.D. and Baylor College of Medicine v. Cynthia Hernandez as the Parent and Next Friend of N.H., a Minor · filed 2008-04-17(a)(5)

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(5) has two requirements for appellate jurisdiction to attach: (1) that the denied summary-judgment motion be "based on an assertion of immunity" by an individual and (2) that that individual be "an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state."

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of an immunity-based summary judgment motion only when the individual asserting immunity is an actual state or political-subdivision officer or employee.

Geffrey Klein, M.D. and Baylor College of Medicine v. Cynthia Hernandez as the Parent and Next Friend of N.H., a Minor · filed 2008-04-17(a)(5)

Strictly construed, section 51.014(a)(5) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes a person to appeal from an order that "denies a motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity by an individual who is an [actual] officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state."

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal when a government employee's denied summary judgment motion asserts absolute privilege as immunity from suit.

Fielding Harwell v. Schrieve · filed 2008-05-22(a)(5)

We therefore conclude that Harwell's "absolute privilege" ground for summary judgment is sufficiently based on an assertion of immunity to give us jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(5) to decide the claim on the merits.

Section 51.014 permits an immediate appeal from an order denying summary judgment only when a statutory exception applies, including the specified immunity and media-related exceptions.

Enriquez v. Rissi Owens, Individually, and in Her Official Capacity as Chairman, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles · filed 2009-03-18(a)(5)-(6)

Our review of the record demonstrates that appellant's motion for summary judgment does not fall within either of the exceptions allowing for an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal from a refusal to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction even when the jurisdictional argument was raised in a motion for summary judgment.

City of Haltom City v. Aurell · filed 2012-08-23(a)(8)

The City filed a motion for summary judgment rather than a plea to the jurisdiction. That distinction does not affect our jurisdiction over the City’s interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8); Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons , 140 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex. 2004) (“[A]n interlocutory appeal may be taken from a refusal to dismiss for want of jurisdiction whether the jurisdictional argument is presented by plea to the jurisdiction or some other vehicle, such as a motion for summary judgment.”).

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a summary judgment motion based on an individual state or local officer’s or employee’s assertion of immunity.

City of Rio Grande City, Texas v. Herrera · filed 2013-01-16(a)(5)

The Legislature created an exception to this general rule for officers or employees of the state or a political subdivision of the state. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(5) (allowing appeal of interlocutory order that denies motion for summary judgment based on assertion of immunity by individual who is officer or employee of state or political subdivision of state). Because this exception does not apply in this case, we will only address the arguments on the plea to the jurisdiction, and not those related to the motion for summary judgment.

Section 51.014(a) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment on the merits of a takings claim.

Doyle Wells, Sea Oats Investments 1, L. P., and Quixote Dunes, Inc. v. Texas Department of Transportation · filed 2013-06-27(a)

The denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment on the merits of their takings claim does not fall within these exceptions.

Section 51.014(a)(6) allows an online speaker to appeal as a member of the electronic media when the speaker’s primary business is reporting news and the speaker acts in that capacity.

Service Employees International Union Local 5, Dan Schlademan and Susan Strubbe v. Professional Janitorial Service of Ho · filed 2013-09-17(a)(6)

Based on the criteria identified in Kaufman, the additional focus on journalism found in Hotze, the emphasis in CPRC sections 22.021(2) and (3) on the reporting or dissemination of the news, and the historical context in which section 51.014(a)(6) was adopted, we conclude that a person who communicates online qualifies as a “member of the electronic [ ] media” when the person’s primary business is reporting the news and they are, as the statute expressly provides, “acting in such capacity.”

Section 51.014(a)(6) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal based on a free exercise, freedom of religion, or federal or Texas RFRA claim or defense.

State v. Valerie Saxion, Inc. and Valerie Saxion, Individually · filed 2014-12-09(a)(6)

And section 51.014(a)(6)’s plain language does not include the Free Exercise Clause, the Freedom of Religion Clause, or the Texas or federal RFRAs as the basis for either a claim or a defense.

Section 51.014(a)(6) permits an interlocutory appeal based on a person’s communication appearing in the media only if the publication engages in news reporting or professional investigation and commentary on matters of public concern.

Skeet Phillips v. Clark · filed 2019-05-03(a)(6)

The media in which the appellant’s communications appear, therefore, must also be in the business of news reporting or professional investigation and commentary on matters of public concern.