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

Section 51.014(a)(9) generally bars an interlocutory appeal from an order granting an extension to cure a medical liability expert report.

Michelle Elaine Grata M.D. v. Eva Hernandez, Individually and a/n.F of J.H., a Minor Child · filed 2024-04-25(a)(9)

But that error, and the consequences of that error, are not reviewable in this accelerated interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(9) (providing jurisdiction to review interlocutory order denying motion to dismiss for failure to serve expert report required by Texas Medical Liability Act but generally specifying “that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension”).

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

In Re Alyssa Abramson and Laser Girl Med Spa LLC v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-03-21(a)(9)

In this case, relators had a right to immediate appellate review of the order denying relators’ motion to dismiss. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from order that “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b)”)).

Section 51.014(a)(9) bars an interlocutory appeal from an order granting an extension to cure a timely served but deficient expert report.

Westover Continuing Care Center Ltd. Co. D/B/A Windemere at Westover Hills, Cantex Health Care Centers III, LLC, and Can · filed 2021-12-01(a)(9)

Therefore, section 51.014(a)(9)’s prohibition against an appeal from an order granting an extension applies, and we lack jurisdiction in this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a refusal to dismiss a health care liability claim while a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report remains in effect.

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Ad · filed 2015-07-06(a)(9)

The defendant cannot seek review of this ruling 9 or appeal the court's concomitant refusal to dismiss the claim before the thirty-day period has expired.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief under section 74.351(b), regardless of the motion’s label, but a nearly identical later motion cannot revive an unappealed order.

Texas Cityview Care Center LP D/B/A Cityview Care Center v. Francesca D. Foster · filed 2015-02-23(a)(9)

The plain language of section 51.014(a)(9) does not restrict the applicability of the section to denials of motions to dismiss; it permits an appeal from an interlocutory order that “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b).” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9). ... Accordingly, we hold that Cityview waived its right to an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s refusal to dismiss Foster’s claims when it failed to appeal the May 8 order.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from a refusal to dismiss based on an amended expert report, even when the trial court granted time to cure the original report.

Millbrook Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center v. Shaundra Edwards, on Behalf of the Estate of Georgia Cullens · filed 2015-02-11(a)(9)

It is appealing from the trial court’s refusal to dismiss based on the amended report. Ogletree does not apply, and this interlocutory appeal is permitted.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies a motion to dismiss after a deficient expert report was served and grants time to cure it.

Tyler Scoresby, M.D. and Yadranko Ducic, M.D. v. Catarino Santillan, Individually and as Next Friend of Samuel Santillan · filed 2009-04-30(a)(9)

If a deficient report is served and the trial court grants a thirty-day extension, that decision—even if coupled with the denial of a motion to dismiss—is not subject to appellate review.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss when no expert report was served.

In Re Watkins · filed 2009-01-23(a)(9)

If no report was served, interlocutory appeal was available, so mandamus is unnecessary.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a provider's motion to dismiss when no expert report was timely served, even if the trial court granted an extension.

Badiga v. Lopez · filed 2009-01-09(a)(9)

The exception to section 51.014(a)(9) prohibiting appeal from an order granting an extension under section 74.351 does not apply when no expert report has been served.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits hospital defendants to appeal; the right is not limited to individual defendants.

Christus Health Southeast Texas v. Broussard · filed 2008-09-11(a)(9)

Section 74.402 concerns the qualifications for an expert witness; subsection (b) adds an additional requirement if the defendant is an individual, but nothing in Section 74.402 limits an appeal taken pursuant to Section 51.014(a)(9) to defendants who are individuals.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief under Section 74.351(b), including when the expert report served is inadequate.

Ronald R. Eikenhorst, M.D. and Trinity Community Medical Center v. Leonard M. Wellbrock and Mary Wellbrock · filed 2008-06-05(a)(9)

Parties are entitled to bring an interlocutory appeal for denial of relief under 74.351(b).

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an immediate appeal from an order denying relief under section 74.351(b) unless the trial court grants a 30-day extension under section 74.351(c).

Bogar v. Esparza · filed 2008-05-16(a)(9)

In other words, an order denying relief under subsection (b) is immediately appealable unless the trial court has discretion under subsection (c) to grant a 30-day extension and actually does so.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief under Section 74.351(b), but excludes an order granting an extension to cure an expert report.

in Re: Tenet Hospitals, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Sierra Medical Center · filed 2008-01-24(a)(9)

A defendant may pursue an interlocutory appeal from an order that denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when the trial court grants an extension to cure a deficient expert report, even if it also denies a motion to dismiss.

Tenet Hospitals, Ltd. v. Gomez · filed 2008-01-24(a)(9)

A defendant may pursue an interlocutory appeal from an order that denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351(c). See Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014 (a)(9)(Vernon Supp. 2007).

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b) when the claimant has served a deficient expert report.

Lewis v. Funderburk Ex Rel. Funderburk · filed 2008-04-11(a)(9)

First, an immediate appeal can be taken if a trial court denies relief sought under subpart (b). [10] ... Accordingly, the court of appeals had jurisdiction to consider the alleged inadequacy of Funderburk's report, and erred in concluding that it did not.

An order granting an extension to cure a deficient expert report is not appealable, even when it also denies a motion to dismiss.

in Re: Nexion Health at Oak Manor, Inc. D/B/A Oak Manor Nursing Home · filed 2008-01-16(a)(9)

Therefore, because the trial court’s order denied Oak Manor’s motion to dismiss but also granted Brewer an extension of time to cure her deficient report, the order is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss when the trial court also grants time to cure a deficient expert report.

in Re: Christian Ehrhard and John D. McKeever, M.D. · filed 2008-03-27(a)(9)

Therefore, because the trial court's order denied Ehrhard and McKeever's motion to dismiss but also granted Cenry an extension of time to cure his deficient report, the order is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies dismissal of a health care liability claim after an expert report was not served by the statutory deadline; the amendment applies only to actions filed after September 1, 2003.

In Re Schneider · filed 2004-05-13(a)(9)

The legislature has recently amended section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to provide for an interlocutory appeal if a trial court denies a motion to dismiss a health care liability claim under section 74.351(b) when an expert's report has not been served within the statutory deadline. ... The amendment applies only to actions filed after September 1, 2003.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an appeal of an expert report sufficiency ruling but not a trial court’s decision to grant a 30-day extension to cure deficiencies.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation v. Rios · filed 2005-05-05(a)(9)

Although appellants may appeal the trial court’s ruling as to the sufficiency of an expert report, no appeal can be taken from the trial court’s decision to grant a 30-day extension under subsection (c).

Section 51.014(a)(10) allows an interlocutory appeal of an order granting relief on a motion challenging the adequacy of a health care liability expert report, but not an order denying that relief.

Academy of Oriental Medicine, L.L.C., Qianzhi Wu and Xiaotian Shen v. Andra · filed 2005-08-26(a)(10)

Section 51.014(a)(10) confers jurisdiction exclusively over interlocutory appeals of orders that grant relief under section 74.351(l).

Section 51.014(a)(9)-(10) allows interlocutory appeals of orders denying relief sought under section 74.351(b) or granting relief sought under section 74.351(l), but not orders denying only the latter relief.

Academy of Oriental Medicine, L.L.C., Qianzhi Wu and Xiaotian Shen v. Andra · filed 2005-08-26(a)(9)-(10)

In accordance with that language, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal of this order because it is neither an order denying the 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(a)(9) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from denial of a motion to dismiss this bill of review concerning a health care liability claim filed before September 1, 2003.

Christus Health Southeast Texas v. Griffin · filed 2005-10-20(a)(9)

We find that St. Mary has failed to invoke our appellate jurisdiction as the February 25, 2005, order denying its motion to dismiss is not governed by Chapter 74 or TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(9) (Vernon Supp.2005), and there is no provision under art. 4590i for appeals of interlocutory orders.

Section 51.014(a)(10) does not permit a defendant to appeal an interlocutory order denying a challenge to the adequacy of a medical malpractice expert report.

Lewis v. Funderburk Ex Rel. Funderburk · filed 2006-05-09(a)(10)

However, the defendant has no right of interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(10) if the court denies the defendant's challenge to the adequacy of an expert report.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when a court denies dismissal for failure to timely serve an expert report, but not when it denies dismissal because the report is allegedly insufficient.

Alcides Cairus, M.D., Individually and D/B/A Alcides Cairus, M.D., P.A. v. Rosemary Gomez and Jesse Gomez · filed 2006-12-06(a)(9)

The order denying Cairus’s motion to dismiss is not a final order because it does not dispose of all pending parties and claims, see id., and it is not an appealable interlocutory order. Academy of Oriental Med., L.L.C. v. Andra, 173 S.W.3d 184, 187 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.) (holding that an order denying a motion to dismiss a health-care liability claim for an insufficient expert report is not appealable); cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (allowing interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss a health-care liability claim for failure to timely serve an expert report), (10) (West Supp. 2006) (allowing interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss a health-care liability claim for inadequacy of the expert report). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Cairus’s first issue.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss a health care liability claim when a separate order grants an extension to serve an expert report.

Soberon v. Robinson · filed 2006-06-29(a)(9)

As a threshold matter, Robinson argues Soberon is precluded from prosecuting this appeal because an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under section 74.351. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9). The resolution of this complaint comes from the simple fact that Soberon's appeal is from the trial court's order dated February 9, 2006, which only ruled on Soberon's motion to dismiss. The record does not indicate any attempt to appeal the trial court's February 8, 2006, order which, inter alia , granted Robinson's request for an extension to file her expert report. As such, Soberon has properly invoked our jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a)(10) does not permit a defendant to appeal an interlocutory order denying a challenge to the adequacy of an expert report.

in Re Carl Long · filed 2007-03-14(a)(10)

As has been observed however, a defendant has no right of interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(10) if the court denies the defendant’s challenge to the adequacy of an expert report.

Section 51.014 does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying dismissal based on alleged inadequacy of a timely filed expert report.

Metwest, Inc. D/B/A Quest Diagnostics Incorporated v. Miguel Rodriguez, Jr., Miguel Rodriguez, and Lucy Rodriguez · filed 2007-04-05(a)(9)–(10)

This court has recently held that we lack jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss that is based on the alleged inadequacy of a timely-filed section 74.351 expert report because such an order is not appealable under section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code. ... Because Appellant’s response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 allows an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief for lack of a timely expert report or granting relief because a report is inadequate, but not from an order denying relief based solely on a report’s alleged inadequacy.

in the Interest of D.A.N. and D.G.N., Jr., Minor Children · filed 2006-12-14(a)(9), (a)(10)

Because the order that the Hospital attempts to appeal is neither an order that denies relief despite the lack of timely filed expert reports—a section 74.351(b) order made appealable by section 51.014(a)(9)—nor an order granting relief based on the trial court’s determination that an expert report was not a good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report—a section 74.351( l ) order made appealable by section 51.014(a)(10)—we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 51.014 does not allow an interlocutory appeal from an order denying dismissal based on alleged inadequacies in a timely filed section 74.351 expert report.

Wendy Collini, M.D. v. Pustejovsky · filed 2007-02-08(a)(9)–(10)

This court has recently held that we lack jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss that is based on the alleged inadequacy of a timely-filed section 74.351 expert report because such an order is not appealable under section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code. ... Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not allow an interlocutory appeal from an order denying dismissal based on alleged inadequacies in a timely filed health care liability expert report.

Graham Oaks Care Center, Inc. v. Farabee · filed 2007-02-08(a)(9)–(10)

This court recently held that we lack jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss that is based on the alleged inadequacy of a timely filed section 74.351 expert report because such an order is not appealable under section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code. ... Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014 does not allow an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss based on inadequacies in a timely filed expert report.

Philip A. Moore, M.D. v. Gatica · filed 2007-01-25(a)(9)–(10)

Before receiving appellant’s response, this court issued an opinion in a separate appeal of an unrelated case, in which it addressed the same jurisdictional matter at issue here and held that this court lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss that is based on the alleged inadequacy of a timely filed section 74.351 expert report because such an order is not appealable under section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code. ... Appellant’s response to our jurisdiction inquiry letter does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying dismissal under Section 74.351(b); an earlier order that only overrules objections to an expert report does not resolve the dismissal request.

CHCA Mainland L.P. D/B/A Mainland Medical Center v. James M. Burkhalter, Individually · filed 2007-03-08(a)(9)

However, the trial court, in its November 18, 2005 order, did not rule on Mainland's initial request to dismiss the case pursuant to section 74.351(b). Rather, the trial court only overruled Mainland's objections to Dr. Fullerton's report made pursuant to section 74.351( l ). ... Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the instant appeal of the trial court's January 25, 2006 order denying Mainland's motion to dismiss.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies relief sought under section 74.351(b), but not when it grants the motion.

Hegwood v. American Habilitation Services · filed 2007-05-10(a)(9)

Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(9) allows an interlocutory appeal if the trial court “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b).” ... The trial court did not deny the motion to dismiss and there is no final judgment because Ford’s claims remained pending. According, we have no jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when a court denies a post-deadline motion seeking dismissal and fees under section 74.351(b) for a deficient expert report without granting an extension.

Mark D. Bogar, M.D. v. Esparza · filed 2007-06-28(a)(9)

That order “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b),” and we have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Dr. Bogar’s appeal from that order. Id. § 51.014(a)(9); see Andra, 173 S.W.3d at 186-87.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief on a motion to dismiss for an inadequate medical expert report, but excludes an order granting an extension to cure the report.

in Re: Mario Padilla, M.D. · filed 2007-08-30(a)(9)

A defendant may pursue an interlocutory appeal from an order that denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351. See Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9).

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss when the trial court grants an extension to cure a timely served, deficient expert report.

Mario Padilla, M.D. v. Loweree · filed 2007-08-30(a)(9)

Having determined the report was deficient, the trial court below exercised its authority under Section 74.351(c) and granted Loweree a 30-day extension to cure the deficiencies. We thus conclude that we lack jurisdiction to entertain Dr. Padilla's interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) bars an interlocutory appeal from an order granting time to cure a deficient expert report, even when the order also denies a motion to dismiss.

in Re: Nexion Health at Oak Manor, Inc. D/B/A Oak Manor Nursing Home · filed 2007-12-12(a)(9)

Therefore, because the trial court’s order denied Oak Manor’s motion to dismiss but also granted Brewer an extension of time to cure her deficient report, the order is not appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss when an expert report is allegedly inadequate, provided no extension to cure was agreed to or granted.

Eric Sides, M. D. v. Guevara · filed 2007-08-30(a)(9)

Under Section 51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, an order denying a motion to dismiss under Section 74.351(b) is subject to interlocutory appeal, as long as no extension was either agreed to by the parties pursuant to Subsection (a) and no thirty-day extension was granted under Subsection (c).

Section 51.014(a)(9) bars an interlocutory appeal when a trial court grants an extension to cure a deficient expert report, even if it also denies a motion to dismiss.

Ogletree v. Matthews · filed 2007-11-30(a)(9)

The statute plainly prohibits interlocutory appeals of orders granting extensions, and if a defendant could separate an order granting an extension from an order denying the motion to dismiss when a report has been served, section 51.014(a)(9)'s ban on interlocutory appeals for extensions would be meaningless.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss challenging the sufficiency of a health care liability expert report.

Lawrence R. Gelman, M. D. and Raymond Barrie Walker, C.R.N.A. v. Cuellar · filed 2008-08-14(a)(9)

A person may appeal from an interlocutory order issued pursuant to section 74.351 when the trial court: (1) denies the relief sought under section 74.351(b); or (2) grants the relief sought under section 74.351(l). ... Therefore, we have jurisdiction to consider appellants' interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when a trial court grants an extension to cure a deficient expert report, even if it also denies a motion to dismiss.

Henderson Memorial Hospital v. White · filed 2010-02-26(a)(9)

As we have explained, no interlocutory appeal is permitted when a served expert report is found deficient and an extension of time granted.

Section 51.014(a)(9) bars an interlocutory appeal when the claimant served a deficient expert report and the trial court granted an extension, but permits an appeal when no report was served as to the appealing defendant.

Clifton Thomas M.D., and Sharon Lambi, P.A v. Torrez · filed 2011-03-31(a)(9)

As to the surgeon, we conclude that the plaintiff served a report that was found deficient within the meaning of section 74.351(c); therefore, we dismiss the surgeon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. But as to the physician’s assistant, we conclude that the plaintiff served no report that could be found deficient. Therefore, we have jurisdiction over the physician’s assistant’s appeal, and we reverse and remand as to the physician’s assistant.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not let a defendant revive a missed interlocutory appeal by filing a nearly identical second motion to dismiss.

Central Texas Spine Institute, LLP and William Peyton Taylor, M.D. v. Brinkley · filed 2011-06-08(a)(9)

CTSI and Taylor point to no authority—and we have found none—supporting their contention that they could revive their right to an interlocutory appeal by filing a nearly identical second motion to dismiss after the trial court had already ruled against them on their first motion brought in response to the same report. Accordingly, under CTSI and Taylor’s own characterization of the claims at issue, they waived their right to an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of their first motion to dismiss when they failed to appeal the April 8 order.

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

Brian K. Seastrunk, M.D. v. Monica Meza, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Maddoux J. Cordova and Adam · filed 2011-08-10(a)(9)

But when a deficient report is served and the court grants a thirty-day extension, we lack jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss.

Section 51.014 does not permit a plaintiff to appeal an interlocutory order granting dismissal under § 74.351(b) when the plaintiff served no expert report as to that defendant.

Perry v. Rick Bradley and Brookshire Grocery Company · filed 2011-12-21(a)(9), (a)(10)

Accordingly, an interlocutory appeal does not lie from an interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss under subsection 74.351(b) when the plaintiff has served “no report” as to a defendant.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an immediate appeal from an order granting a 30-day extension to cure a deficient medical expert report.

Laredo Texas Hospital Co. v. Gonzalez · filed 2012-01-11(a)(9)

The trial court’s decision to grant this one-time extension was not immediately appealable. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(9) (West Supp. 2011); Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 555.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a health care provider’s motion to dismiss a health care liability claim, but not from an order denying objections to an expert report.

Clinton Brunson, M.D. v. Johnston · filed 2012-03-08(a)(9)

The civil practice and remedies code authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a defendant physician’s or health care provider’s section 74.351(b) motion to dismiss a health care liability claim, not a defendant’s objections to a section 74.351 expert report.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying dismissal and fees sought under Section 74.351(b) for failure to serve timely and adequate expert reports.

Fung v. Fischer · filed 2012-04-13(a)(9)

The orders appealed here denied the relief—dismissal and fees—sought in appellants’ motions to dismiss, which were based upon the Fischers’ failure to serve timely and adequate expert reports. ... Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to section 51.014(a)(9) of the civil practice and remedies code.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an immediate appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss when no timely expert report implicates the defendant, even if the trial court grants an extension to cure the report.

Anil K. Sinha, MD v. Roxanne Thurston and James Thurston · filed 2012-06-07(a)(9)

As is explained in the text of this opinion, Sinha‘s complaint is that no expert report was timely filed implicating his conduct; thus, the grant of the 30-day extension does not deprive this court of jurisdiction.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal challenging an expert’s qualifications when the claimant timely served a deficient report and the trial court granted a thirty-day extension to cure it.

Austin Regional Clinic, P.A. and Steve Wilkins, M.D. v. Power · filed 2012-06-28(a)(9)

Given that the trial court granted a thirty-day extension, we also conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to further consider appellants’ issues challenging the author’s qualifications.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit interlocutory review of an extension to cure a timely served expert report that meets the minimum requirements.

Memorial Hermann Surgery Center Texas Medical Center, LLP v. Lester Smith and Patricia Nelson-Smith · filed 2012-12-20(a)(9)

If, however, the initial report meets the minimum requirements, then the trial court could grant an extension to the Smiths to cure its deficiencies; we may not review the merits of that ruling. ... Because we hold that Dr. Brodherson’s initial report meets Scoresby’s minimum requirements, allowing the trial court to grant an extension to cure its deficiencies, we turn to whether the trial court erred in denying MHSC’s second motion to dismiss, filed in response to Dr. Brodherson’s amended report.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies all or part of the relief sought under section 74.351(b); it does not apply when the court grants relief.

Gretchen Huepers, Individually, and as Independent of the Estate of James Huepers v. St. Luke Episcopal Hospital · filed 2013-04-30(a)(9)

Section 51.014(a)(9) of the Civil Practice and Remedies permits interlocutory appeals when a trial court denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(b). TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(9) (West Supp. 2012). The order here, however, was a grant of relief and section 51.014(a)(9) does not apply.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under § 74.351(b), even when the trial court also grants an unauthorized extension to serve an expert report.

CHCA BAYSHORE, LP D/B/A EAST HOUSTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. Salazar · filed 2013-05-07(a)(9)

Under the interlocutory-appeals statute, a person may appeal an interlocutory order that “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (West Supp. 2012). ... Accordingly, it is clear CHCA is appealing the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, as authorized under the interlocutory-appeals statute.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when the trial court sustains some objections to expert reports but denies a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b).

Bailey v. Amaya Clinic, Inc and Dr. David W. Powell · filed 2013-05-30(a)(9)

Although the trial court sustained some of the objections, it did not dismiss the case. We interpret this as a denial of relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(b) for which an interlocutory appeal is available.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief under section 74.351(b).

HEB Grocery Company, LP v. Galloway · filed 2014-05-22(a)(9)

Section 51.014(a)(9) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief under section 74.351(b), and this Court therefore has jurisdiction of this interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) and (a)(10) do not authorize an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing medical liability claims for failure to serve an expert report.

the Estate of Carmelina "Millie" Smith, by and Through Its Representative, Christine Faber, Individually and on Behalf o · filed 2016-04-08(a)(9), (a)(10)

The order appealed in this case, however, grants dismissal based on failure to serve an expert report. The civil practice and remedies code does not authorize appeal of such orders.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a claimant time to cure a deficient expert report.

Wyrick v. Hal T. Jayson, M.D., Radiology Associates of North Texas, P.A., Joey Mayor, M.D. and EmCare DFW Emer · filed 2018-07-12(a)(9)

But the limited grant of jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(9) does not apply to an order granting an “extension to the claimant in order to cure the deficiency” noted in the section 74.351(b) motion.

Section 51.014(a)(9) prevents an immediate appeal of an order finding expert reports deficient when the trial court also grants an extension to cure the deficiency.

Retirement and Nursing Center - Austin Ltd. v. Israel Joseph, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate · filed 2019-08-21(a)(9)

The February 2, 2017 order finding Dr. Reuben’s initial report and Nurse Loftin’s report deficient as to causation was not immediately appealable because the district court also granted the thirty-day extension of time to cure the deficiency in those reports.

Section 51.014(a)(10) permits an interlocutory appeal concerning the adequacy of an expert report, but does not apply to dismissal based on the report’s absence.

Rick Milteer v. Park Venture Endoscopy Center L.L.C. Assumed Name Preston Crossing EndoscopyCenter, Anna Christen Scoggi · filed 2020-01-08(a)(10)

That section permits an appeal from an order that grants relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(l) which concerns the adequacy of an expert report. See id. 74351(l). The motions to dismiss filed below addressed the absence, not adequacy, of an expert report. For this reason, section 51.014(a)(10) is inapplicable.

Section 51.014(a)(9) bars an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a plaintiff thirty days to cure deficiencies in a health care liability expert report.

Erin Jepson, N.P. v. Wyrick · filed 2020-01-30(a)(9)

In health care liability cases, the Texas Legislature has specified that a defendant cannot appeal a trial court’s interlocutory ruling granting a plaintiff a thirty-day extension authorized by Section 74.351(c) to cure deficiencies in an expert report.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under Section 74.351, but bars an appeal from an order granting an extension under that section.

Thomas Kevin Cook, MD and the Craniofacial and Plastic Surgery Center- Houston, Qijun Song, C.S.A. v. Broussard · filed 2020-04-21(a)(9)

However, the statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss expressly disallows an appeal from “an order granting an extension under Section 74.351.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(9); see Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex. 2007) (“[T]he statute plainly prohibits interlocutory appeals of orders granting extensions . . . .”). ... We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider this challenge on appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in an expert report.

Melvin C. Welch, Jr. v. Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center - Marshall, Donna Alzaga, M.D., and Andrew Dickhute, M.D. · filed 2020-04-08(a)(9)

The trial court’s granting of a thirty-day extension under Section 74.351(c) was an interlocutory order that could not be appealed.

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 it.

Michael Todd Kosar, Individually as Independent Administrator for the Estate of Betty Kosar, Crisantos G. Lopez, Genevie · filed 2020-12-03(a)(9)

An interlocutory appeal is only authorized from the denial of a section 74.351(b) motion to dismiss, not when the motion is granted. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 54.014(a)(9).

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting more time to serve a health care liability expert report.

Richard Kim M.D. v. Ramos · filed 2021-07-01(a)(9)

But Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014 expressly disallows an appeal from an order granting an extension related to an expert report.

Section 51.014(a)(9) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting time to cure deficiencies in an expert report under § 74.351.

North Cypress Medical Center Operating Company, Ltd., D/B/A North Cypress Medical Center and Dr. Ozochukwu Odili v. Rand · filed 2022-01-13(a)(9)

Furthermore, the decision to grant a thirty- day extension is not appealable. Ogletree, 262 S.W.3d at 319; see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (providing that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under § 74.351). Therefore, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order granting White thirty days to amend any deficiencies in Dr. Srinivasan’s original expert repot.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b).

Richard Lee Williams, P.A. v. Donna Roland and Darlene Peninger, Both Individually and as Representatives on Behalf of t · filed 2022-06-21(a)(9)

We conclude the order denying the motion to dismiss is an order that “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b)” and, therefore, falls under section 51.014(a)(9) of the civil practice and remedies code.

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

Central States Water Resources, Inc. v. Undine Development, LLC and Undine Texas, LLC · filed 2022-07-07(a)(12)

We have repeatedly held that an order granting a TCPA motion to dismiss is not an appealable interlocutory order. ... Beacon Hill, however, was decided before the enactment of Section 51.014(a)(12) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code—a section authorizing an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying all or part of a Section 74.351(b) motion, but not from an order granting the motion.

Novak Jr. v. Luis G. Schaeffer and Brookshire Brothers, Inc. · filed 2023-03-30(a)(9)

Section 51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code only permits an interlocutory appeal from an order that “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351.”

Section 51.014(a)(9) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a Section 74.351(b) dismissal motion, but not from an order granting one.

Britton v. Khalid A. Azzouz and Riad Almasri · filed 2024-07-11(a)(9)

Nor is the order here an appealable interlocutory order. ... Compare Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from order denying motion to dismiss under Section 74.351(b)), with id. § 51.014(a)(10) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from order granting motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 74.351(l) for failure to file adequate expert report).

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

Sharon Bayus, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Innovative Alternatives, Inc. v. Dennis Stetzel, Individually, · filed 2024-10-29(a)(12)

Notably, section 51.014(a)(12) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under the TCPA. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(12). However, the statute provides no such authorization for an immediate, interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under the TCPA.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an immediate appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under § 74.351(b), unless the trial court also grants an extension to cure deficiencies.

MedCare EMS v. Flores · filed 2026-02-26(a)(9)

Thus, no immediate interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to dismiss if the trial court also grants an extension to cure deficiencies.

Section 51.014(b)’s automatic stay during an interlocutory appeal does not make a plaintiff’s non-suit filed in the trial court ineffective.

City of San Antonio v. Guerrero · filed 2024-10-23(b)

The filing of the City’s notice of appeal automatically stayed all proceedings in the trial court pending the resolution of this appeal. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(b). ... We conclude that Morath requires us to reject the City’s argument that Guerrero’s non-suit was voidable or otherwise ineffective.

Section 51.014(c) prevents an interlocutory appeal from automatically staying trial court proceedings when the governmental unit files its plea to the jurisdiction after the scheduling order’s deadline.

City of El Paso v. Albert Lopez and Lexby Lopez · filed 2023-12-28(c)

Accordingly, we conclude the filing of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction after the deadline set by the agreed scheduling order excepts the triggering of the automatic stay—during the pendency of the appeal—that would otherwise be imposed on all trial court proceedings.

Section 51.014(b)'s automatic stay makes a final judgment entered in violation of the stay voidable.

Copano NGL Services, LLC v. John Ashcraft, Individually and as Trustee for the John Ashcraft Family Trust 2012 · filed 2015-12-29(b)

Because a final judgment frequently moots an interlocutory appeal, 5 we must decide whether the trial court's failure to observe the stay made the final judgment void or merely voidable. ... We conclude it is voidable.

Section 51.014(b)'s stay does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction, so a summary judgment entered during the stay is not void.

Escalante v. Rowan · filed 2008-01-22(b)

There was no contention in the trial court or in this appeal that the trial court did not have jurisdiction, and we conclude that the section 51.014(b) stay does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment is not void.

Section 51.014(b) stays trial court proceedings after a qualifying interlocutory appeal is filed, so a petition filed after the notice of appeal is not considered on appeal.

the City of Victoria v. Wayne · filed 2010-04-15(b)

Because the City's notice of interlocutory appeal effectuated a stay of all trial court proceedings, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(b) (Vernon 2008), we do not consider Wayne's second amended petition in resolving this appeal.

Section 51.014(b) stays all other trial court proceedings while an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction is pending.

the University Interscholastic League v. Southwest Officials Association, Inc., D/B/A Texas Association of Sports Offici · filed 2010-08-27(b)

An interlocutory appeal from an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction "stays all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the appeal." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(b) (West 2008); see also id. § 51.014(a)(8). In the absence of a writ of injunction, the trial court's temporary restraining order would have expired while the interlocutory appeal was pending.

Section 51.014(b) stays all other trial court proceedings while an interlocutory appeal under subsection (a)(8) is pending.

in Re Texas Association of Sports Officials · filed 2011-05-06(b)

An interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(8) "stays all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that appeal." Id. § 51.014(b).

Section 51.014(b) provides that an appeal from a temporary injunction order does not stay trial court proceedings pending the appeal.

Rhett Webster Pease v. First National Bank of Giddings · filed 2011-06-10(b)

Further, section 51.014(b) of the civil practice and remedies code expressly provides that an appeal from a temporary injunction order does not stay trial court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal.

Section 51.014(b) provides that an appeal from a temporary injunction order does not stay trial court proceedings.

Brad Livingston, in His Official Capacity as the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal… · filed 2011-06-10(b)

Further, section 51.014(b) of the civil practice and remedies code expressly provides that an appeal from a temporary injunction order does not stay trial court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal.

Section 51.014(b) stays trial court proceedings during an interlocutory appeal, creating a conflict with required child-protection hearings.

in the Interest of K.G.S. and T.W.S., Children · filed 2012-08-17(b)

The stay provision in Section 51.014(b) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code conflicts with the Family Code statutes governing cases brought by the Department for child protection.

Section 51.014(b)’s stay of trial court proceedings during an interlocutory appeal conflicts with the Family Code’s child protection proceedings.

in the Interest of K.G.S. and T.W.S., Children · filed 2012-09-25(b)

The stay provision in Section 51.014(b) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code conflicts with the Family Code statutes governing cases brought by the Department for child protection.

An appeal from a temporary injunction does not stay proceedings in the trial court.

Layton v. Ball · filed 2013-03-28(b)

Unlike most other permissible interlocutory appeals, an appeal from a temporary injunction does not stay the proceedings in the trial court.

Section 51.014(b) stays trial court proceedings pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

Rowland Martin, Jr. v. Edward L. Bravenec and 1216 West Ave., Inc. · filed 2014-12-09(b)

Because appellant is appealing the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss which was filed pursuant to section 27.003 of the Texas Citizens Participation Act, however, all proceedings in the trial court are STAYED pending this court’s resolution of this appeal. Id. at § 51.014(b).

Section 51.014(b) stays trial court proceedings during an interlocutory appeal under subsection (a)(8); once the stay lifts, a party may seek to amend its pleadings or join parties as procedural rules allow.

Roal Global Corporation v. City of Dallas · filed 2015-05-21(b)

When the stay of proceedings in the trial court under section 51.014(b) of the civil practice and remedies code is lifted, appellant will have the opportunity to seek to join additional parties or amend its pleadings as the rules of civil procedure may allow.

Section 51.014(b) stays all trial court proceedings while an interlocutory appeal under subsection (a)(12) is pending.

Sullo v. Felix Michael Kubosh A/K/A Kubosh Bail Bonding, Paul Kubosh A/K/A Kubosh Law Office · filed 2018-06-07(b)

The automatic stay imposed by section 51.014(b) creates a bright line rule, staying “the commencement of a trial” for most interlocutory appeals under section 51.014(a), and it “also stays all other proceedings in the trial court” pending resolution of any interlocutory appeal filed under section 51.014(a)(12), as here.

Section 51.014(b) stays other trial court proceedings during an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss.

Hughes v. Giammanco · filed 2018-09-20(b)

Appellant has filed an emergency motion to stay trial court proceedings pending resolution of this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying her motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(12), (b) (interlocutory appeal of denial of TCPA motion to dismiss “stays all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that appeal”). The motion is GRANTED. The trial court proceedings are ordered stayed until November 6, 2018.

Section 51.014(b) generally stays trial-court proceedings during appeals under subsections (a)(3), (5), (8), or (12), while Appellate Rule 28.1(c) allows the trial court to file findings and conclusions.

City of San Antonio v. Arciniega · filed 2019-07-26(b)

Generally, “[a]n interlocutory appeal under Subsection (a)(3), (5), (8), or (12) also stays all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that appeal,” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(b), but the Rules of Appellate Procedure allow the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law “within 30 days after the order is signed,” TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(c). ... The City’s motion to extend the period for the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is GRANTED.

Section 51.014(b) stays trial court proceedings during an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, so a party must seek injunctive relief before that appeal.

Reeves v. Harbor America Central, Inc. · filed 2020-04-28(b)

The only limitation is that, as the SPEX Group court noted, the party seeking injunctive relief must do so before a TCPA movant appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss.

Section 51.014(b) keeps trial court proceedings stayed until the interlocutory appeal is finally resolved.

Reeves v. Harbor America Central, Inc. · filed 2020-08-11(b)

Because this appeal is not finally resolved, all proceedings in the trial court remain stayed.

Section 51.014(b)’s stay of trial court proceedings does not arise from an interlocutory appeal concerning a TCPA motion that does not exist.

Advanced Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Group LLC v. Krenek · filed 2021-06-08(b)

Because there was no TCPA motion, there could be no stay pending interlocutory appeal of the purported motion preventing the trial court from signing its judgment in the case before us.

Section 51.014(b) stays trial court proceedings when a notice of interlocutory appeal is filed under subsection (a)(8).

San Jacinto River Authority v. Lewis · filed 2021-07-13(b)

SJRA filed its notice of interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(8) on February 14, 2019, and thus SJRA was entitled to a stay of all court proceedings as of that date.

Section 51.014 does not prohibit a trial court from entering a Rule 306a finding after the interlocutory appeal has been abated and remanded.

Texas A&M University System v. Fraley · filed 2021-07-30(b)

Furthermore, at the time the trial court signed its order on May 12, this Court had abated TAMU’s interlocutory appeal and remanded the case to the trial court. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (appellate court can abate appeal to permit clarification of order by trial court). Therefore, we are not persuaded that section 51.014 prohibits the action taken by the trial court here.

Section 51.014(b) stays further trial court action while the identified interlocutory appeal is pending.

in Re Bruce L. Jamison · filed 2021-12-06(b)

Although the bankruptcy debtor is not a party to this mandamus proceeding, it appears any further action by the trial court in Cause Number 20-09-10625-CV has been stayed by virtue of Appeal No. 09-21-00180- CV, Southern Luxury Motorcars, LLC, d/b/a Crave Luxury Auto, and Andrew Powers v. Karl Stomberg et al. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(b).

Section 51.014(b) stays all trial court proceedings when an interlocutory appeal is perfected, including subsequent filings by a party.

San Jacinto River Authority v. Gonzalez · filed 2022-10-06(b)

Under the plain text of section 51.014(b) and Supreme Court of Texas precedent interpreting it, the filing of the Authority’s notice of appeal triggered a statutory stay of all proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the appeal, and there are no exceptions to this stay.

Section 51.014 stays trial court proceedings during an interlocutory appeal, preserving a party’s unexpired opportunity to replead after remand.

Dallas County, Texas v. Henderson · filed 2024-12-11(c)

Although the trial court ordered Henderson to “re-plead and/or amend” those claims in 60 days, the County filed its appeal before that time period elapsed and before Henderson had complied with the order. Trial court proceedings were then stayed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7), (c).

An interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(8) stays all other trial court proceedings while the appeal is pending.

in Re Texas Association of Sports Officials · filed 2010-02-05(b)

An interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(8) "stays all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that appeal." Id. § 51.014(b). ... We agree that the terms of the temporary restraining order must remain in effect pending resolution of the UIL's interlocutory appeal in order to preserve the subject matter of the underlying suit and enforce our jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(b) entitles the parties to a stay of trial-court proceedings while an interlocutory appeal from a governmental unit’s jurisdictional plea is pending.

in Re Panda Power Infrastructure Fund, LLC, D/B/A Panda Power Funds · filed 2021-03-19(b)

Once ERCOT filed its interlocutory appeal and alternative mandamus petition challenging the trial court’s denial of its jurisdictional plea, the parties were entitled to a stay of all proceedings until that appeal was resolved.

Section 51.014(a)(7) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a special appearance but does not require a party to appeal before final judgment.

GJP, Inc. Richard D. Herting Classic Jaguar, Inc. and Dan Mooney v. Ghosh · filed 2008-03-28(a)(7)

The legislature did not state that section 51.014(a)(7) is the exclusive or mandatory means for appealing the types of orders within its scope, nor did it say anything about limiting our general appellate jurisdiction to consider such orders after they are merged into final judgments.

Section 51.014(a)(7) permits an interlocutory appeal of an order granting or denying a special appearance without requiring that appeal to preserve review after final judgment.

DeWolf v. Kohler · filed 2014-11-18(a)(7)

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a authorizes any party to file a special appearance to object to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant’s person or property, and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(7) provides that a person “may” appeal the interlocutory order granting or denying the special appearance. Neither provision imposes any penalty for the failure to pursue an interlocutory appeal. We therefore conclude that Tammy did not waive her complaint regarding the special- appearance ruling by failing to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and Tammy’s timely appeal from the final judgment gives us appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of that complaint.

Section 51.014 does not permit a permissive interlocutory appeal in an action brought under the Family Code.

Galyon v. Andrea Noble, Bruce Noble and Lauren Nicole Pray · filed 2025-01-29(d-1)

Because this action was brought under the Family Code, Galyon’s permissive interlocutory appeal is not permitted.

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction order when the Family Code bars that appeal.

In the Interest of J.V.G. and O.I.G., Children v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-11-20(a)(4)

Therefore, the denial of the injunction that Appellant seeks to appeal is excluded from § 51.014(4) and we lack jurisdiction to hear the matter in an interlocutory appeal.

Subsection (d-1) excludes actions brought under the Family Code from permissive interlocutory appeal, but does not exclude a claim brought under a contractual right to enforce a partition agreement.

Pesce v. Pesce · filed 2022-08-31(d-1)

But because Robyn’s pleadings state that “her claims arise under the contractual right to enforce the Partition Agreement, not under the Family Code,” the limitation in subsection (d-1) does not apply.

Section 51.014(a)(7) prohibits an interlocutory appeal from a special appearance order in a suit brought under the family code.

in the Interest of A.G. and V.G., Children · filed 2022-03-01(a)(7)

Interlocutory appeals from a special appearance order in a suit brought under the family code and an order refusing to transfer a suit affecting parent-child relationship are specifically prohibited. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7) (special appearance); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 155.204(h) (transfer).

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction issued as a temporary order in a divorce proceeding or SAPCR.

Perkins v. Perkins · filed 2021-07-07(a)(4)

Perkins may not circumvent the legislature’s express intention to prohibit the interlocutory appeal of temporary orders rendered in divorce proceedings and SAPCRs—including temporary injunctions rendered therein—by casting the temporary order as a temporary injunction subject to interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(7) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the grant or denial of a special appearance in a family law matter.

In Re JWL · filed 2009-06-15(a)(7)

Normally, the grant or denial of a special appearance is subject to an interlocutory appeal; however, if it involves a family law matter, there is no such right to an interlocutory appeal. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7); see CHEK Inv., L.L.C. v. L.R., 260 S.W.3d 704, 706 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).

Section 51.014(a)(7) bars an interlocutory appeal from a special appearance ruling in a suit brought under the Family Code, even when the claims against the appealing defendant do not arise under that code.

Chek Investments, LLC v. LR · filed 2008-08-15(a)(7)

Section 51.014(a)(7) does not limit its prohibition of interlocutory special-appearance appeals to defendants "sued under" the family code. Rather, the prohibition applies if the defendant specially appears "in a suit brought under the Family Code."

Section 51.014(a)(4) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction in a divorce proceeding when Family Code § 6.507 bars the appeal.

in Re Vitol, Inc. and Miguel Angel Loya · filed 2010-01-28(a)(4)

Because section 6.507 of the Family Code applies specifically to divorce proceedings, it prevails over Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 and the order at issue is not subject to interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(7) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a special appearance, except in a family law matter.

the Knight Corporation v. Susana Nery Knight · filed 2012-03-29(a)(7)

Normally, the grant or denial of a special appearance is subject to an interlocutory appeal; however, if it involves a family law matter, there is no such right to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014(d) does not apply to actions brought under the Family Code.

Hernandez v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2012-05-09(d-1)

Section 51.014(d) does not, however, apply to an action brought under the Family Code.

Section 51.014(d-1) excludes Family Code actions from the provision allowing a trial court to authorize an otherwise unavailable interlocutory appeal.

in the Matter of O. D. T., a Child · filed 2013-02-07(d-1)

It is also noteworthy that, while section 51.014 allows a trial court to authorize an interlocutory appeal “from an order that is not otherwise appealable” under certain limited circumstances, see id. § 51.014(d), that provision is not applicable to “action[s] brought under the Family Code,” see id. § 51.014(d-1), such as this one.

Section 51.014(d-1) excludes actions brought under the Family Code from permissive interlocutory appeals.

in the Interest of S.R.B., a Child · filed 2013-09-12(d-1)

Specifically, although appellants argue that the question is whether the family code or the ICWA applies, the private termination suit at issue here was brought under the family code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d-1) (specifically excluding actions brought under the family code from allowable permissive appeals).

Section 51.014(a)(7) excludes interlocutory appeals from orders denying special appearances in suits brought under the Family Code.

Swart v. Morales · filed 2019-04-10(a)(7)

Section 51.014(a)(7) of the civil practice and remedies code excludes an interlocutory appeal “in a suit brought under the Family Code.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7). We, therefore, lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.

Section 51.014’s permissive appeal procedure does not apply to actions brought under the Family Code.

Schrab v. Rossi · filed 2019-05-22(d), (e)

The petition for permissive appeal is denied. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d), (e) (providing permissive appeal procedure “does not apply to an action brought under the Family Code.”).

Section 51.014(a)(7) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a special appearance in a suit brought under the Family Code.

in the Interest of D.N.C., a Child · filed 2019-09-25(a)(7)

Ordinarily, a person may pursue an interlocutory appeal from the grant of a special appearance, but not “in a suit brought under the Family Code.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7); accord In re J.P.L., 359 S.W.3d 695, 702–03 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied); In re Marriage of Loya, 290 S.W.3d 920, 921 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.).

Section 51.014(a)(7) allows an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a special appearance, except in a suit brought under the Family Code.

In Re Lanna Dee Wood, as Trustee of the Irrevocable Gifting Trust of Larry M. Ramsey for the Benefit of Daughters v. the · filed 2024-09-26(a)(7)

Because the special appearance arose in a family law case, interlocutory appellate review of the trial court’s erroneous decision is unavailable. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7).

Section 51.014(a)(7) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a special appearance in a suit brought under the Family Code.

AGiza v. Franklin · filed 2025-07-23(a)(7)

As a result, we may not rely on Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(7) to exercise jurisdiction over AGiza’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of her special appearance.

Section 51.014(a)(7) excludes suits brought under the Family Code, including Uniform Interstate Family Support Act suits, from interlocutory appeals of orders granting or denying a defendant’s special appearance.

In the Interest of M. O. W. v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-11-07(a)(7)

The Court explained that the statute upon which Watts relies in this case expressly precludes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a defendant’s special appearance in a suit brought under the Family Code. ... The trial court’s September 11, 2025 order is neither a final, appealable order nor an appealable interlocutory order.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits a health care provider to appeal an order denying a challenge to an expert report, but failure to take that interlocutory appeal does not waive a challenge after nonsuit and final judgment.

Hernandez v. Ebrom · filed 2009-07-03(a)(9)

The Legislature authorized health care providers to pursue interlocutory appeals from trial court denials of challenges to plaintiffs' expert reports, but we see no indication that the Legislature effectively mandated interlocutory appeals by providing that if no appeal was taken, then the health care provider waived the right to challenge the report under all circumstances. Neither section 51.014(a)(9) nor section 74.351 indicates there are consequences if an appeal from the interlocutory order is not pursued.

Section 51.014(a)(6) does not permit a defamation plaintiff to bring an interlocutory appeal or raise cross-points in the defendant's interlocutory appeal.

Gilbert Franco// Guillermo Ochoa Cronfel v. Guillermo Ochoa Cronfel// Cross-Appellee, Gilbert Franco · filed 2010-03-12(a)(6)

Texas courts have consistently recognized, however, that the statute does not permit the plaintiff to bring a similar interlocutory appeal, nor does it confer jurisdiction over cross-points raised on appeal by the plaintiff.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, but not from an order granting dismissal of some claims.

Jason Millon and Brayden Millon v. Stephanie Elizabeth Minchew, Cheryl Lynne Minchew, John Edward Minchew, Sherri Lynne · filed 2024-10-15(a)(12)

Moreover, the only statute which approaches authorizing an interlocutory appeal here solely authorizes appeals from the “deni[al of] a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003” of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(12). By contrast, an order dismissing claims pursuant to the TCPA is not immediately appealable unless it constitutes a final judgment.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal of a TCPA motion only when the motion has been denied by signed order or by operation of law after a hearing.

In the Estate of Pamela E. Banks v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-10-17(a)(12)

A party may appeal from an interlocutory order denying a TCPA motion either by signed order or by operation of law. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 27.008(a); 51.014(a)(12). ... Because Gardner’s TCPA motion has not been denied by signed order or by operation of law because the trial court did not conduct a hearing on the motion, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, but an order granting the motion is not appealable while a counterclaim remains pending and the claims have not been severed.

in the Matter of the Estate of William Eugene Gleghorn · filed 2022-11-09(a)(12)

A party may file an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(12) (West Supp. 2022) (emphasis added). ... Therefore, we conclude that the order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss under the TCPA is interlocutory and not appealable at this juncture.

Section 51.014 allows an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss, but does not authorize one from an order granting the motion.

Kent Flynn D/B/A Flynn & Company and D/B/A SFC Services v. Gorman · filed 2016-09-08(a)(12)

But no express statutory authority allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under the TCPA.

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.

Fleming & Associates, L.L.P N/K/A Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P. v. Charles Kirklin, Stephen Kirklin, Paul Kirklin, and th · filed 2015-10-29(a)(12)

The Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for interlocutory appeal of an order that “denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(12) (West 2015). ... Nonetheless, no statute explicitly provides for an interlocutory appeal of an order that grants such a motion.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under Section 27.003, but not from an order granting one.

Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. (n/K/A Fleming, Nolen & Jez L.L.P.) and George Fleming v. Charles Kirklin, Stephen Kirklin, · filed 2015-10-29(a)(12)

The Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for interlocutory appeal of an order that “denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(12) (West 2015). ... Therefore, the courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under Section 27.003 only after final judgment.

Roll-N-Rock, Inc. and Richard C. Vanglish v. Patison · filed 2015-09-02(a)(12)

A party may appeal from an interlocutory order that grants a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Section 27.003 only upon final judgment.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under Section 27.003, but not from an order granting one.

James David Horton and Robbie Lesa Horton v. Susan McMillion Martin, Shannon Pritchard, Brooke Daves and Kimberly Stoval · filed 2015-06-16(a)(12)

At all times relevant to this case, the Act of May 24, 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., ch. 1042, H.B. 2935, § 4 (codified at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(12)) only allowed an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Section 27.003.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under section 27.003, but not from an order granting one.

Mary Harp Shankles v. J. Don Gordon, Hynds & Gordon, P.C., David N. McNees · filed 2015-06-01(a)(12)

The statute does not permit an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss under section 27.003, which the trial court’s order did in this case.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a section 27.003 motion to dismiss, and its 2013 amendment applies to pending cases.

Pickens v. Cordia · filed 2014-05-22(a)(12)

Additionally, section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code was amended in the 2013 legislative session to specifically allow for an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss filed under section 27.003. ... Consequently, we conclude the amendment applies in this case.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss and request for attorneys’ fees under section 74.351(b).

Kristen Kocurek, M.D., and Texas MedClinic v. Colby · filed 2014-08-22(a)(9)

The denial of a motion to dismiss and request for attorneys’ fees under section 74.351(b) is subject to interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(5) permits an interlocutory appeal when a state officer’s motion asserting official immunity is denied, including a motion for reconsideration.

Dorrough v. John Murray Faircloth and Helen Bowen · filed 2014-07-30(a)(5)

Dorrough’s motion raised official immunity, and the trial court denied his motion. Dorrough met the requirements for an interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(5).

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss, but not from an order denying attorney’s fees when the motion to dismiss was granted.

Paulsen v. Yarrell · filed 2014-12-17(a)(12)

Because Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an appeal only from an order that “denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003,” and because we are obliged to interpret the scope of our interlocutory appellate jurisdiction narrowly, we conclude that Paulsen’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of attorney’s fees is not authorized by statute.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from the portion of an order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss, but not from a portion granting the motion in the same written order.

Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Rutherford · filed 2015-08-26(a)(12)

To the extent a party appeals from the part of such an order that denies the motion to dismiss, the statute applies and permits an interlocutory appeal. ... We conclude that the denial of a motion to dismiss does not provide an avenue of interlocutory appeal to all other ancillary rulings contained within the same written “interlocutory order.”

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from any order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss, including a signed order.

Stephen Nolan Bedford and Autumn Bedford v. Darin Spassoff and 6 Tool, LLC, Formerly Known as Dallas Dodgers Baseball Cl · filed 2016-02-11(a)(12)

However, as the supreme court has observed, the legislature “has since clarified that an interlocutory appeal is permitted from any interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss under the TCPA.” ... Appellees filed this lawsuit in November 2014, after the legislature amended section 51.014. ... Thus, there is no jurisdictional impediment to this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(12) allows an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, but not from an order granting one.

Dr. George F. Moricz v. Pamela K. Long and Stacy A. Long, Individually and as Husband and Wife, and Nichole Hamilton · filed 2017-07-20(a)(12)

But no express statutory authority allows an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under the Act.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss; without a denial, there is no appeal under this subsection.

Wightman-Cervantes v. Hernandez · filed 2018-02-09(a)(12)

Because Wightman-Cervantes’s motion was never denied, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. § 51.014(a)(12) (authorizing an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss filed under the TCPA).

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal when an order striking a TCPA motion functions as a denial of that motion.

Retzlaff v. Philip R. Klein, Klein Investigations & Consulting, and James W. Landess · filed 2017-08-02(a)(12)

The trial court’s order striking all of Retzlaff’s pleadings operated to deny Retzlaff’s motion to dismiss. Thus, the order striking Retzlaff’s pleadings is the functional equivalent of an order denying Retzlaff’s motion to dismiss. See Solano, 388 S.W.3d at 349 (concluding an order striking a motion was the functional equivalent of an order denying the motion). Because the challenged order is the functional equivalent of an order denying a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to section 27.003, we conclude that this interlocutory appeal is authorized by statute and we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal when a TCPA motion to dismiss is denied.

in Re Jose Bandin and Monica Babayan · filed 2018-08-03(a)(12)

An interlocutory appeal is available to the extent that the motion is denied. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(12) (Vernon Supp. 2017).

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

Larry Chambers and Abie Wolf v. Ricardo Rivera and Cimarron Conyers · filed 2019-07-24(a)(12)

Section 51.014(a)(12) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes the interlocutory appeal of an order that denies a motion to dismiss under Section 27.003 of the TCPA, but it does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss.

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.

Ilham K. El-Saleh and Mohamed Mooti v. Aldirawi · filed 2020-01-15(a)(12)

Section 51.014(a)(12) now expressly permits an interlocutory appeal only from an order denying a motion to dismiss.

Section 51.014 does not permit interlocutory appeals from orders denying the motions identified in the opinion, including motions for appointment of counsel, a bench warrant, and discovery sanctions.

Johnathan Cooper v. Schulman · filed 2020-02-27

He seeks to appeal from the trial court’s orders denying his motion for appointment of counsel, writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, motion for bench warrant, motion to admit admissions made by defendant, motion for court order to transcribe prior and current live hearings, and motion for sanctions against defendant for failure to comply with discovery. The clerk’s record contains the referenced orders, but those orders are not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed).

Section 51.014(a)(12) does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under section 27.003.

the Fell Clutch, LLC v. Cherokee Black Entertainment Inc., and Jimmie D. Wheeler · filed 2020-01-23(a)(12)

This court lacks jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss under section 27.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss, but does not authorize an appeal when the court declines to consider the motion for lack of required notice.

Calkins v. Carolyn Calkins James and Maurice Bresenhan, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Mary Olive H · filed 2020-10-13(a)(12)

Although Section 51.014(a)(12) authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss, there is no authority authorizing an appeal where, as in this case, the court concludes that the motion cannot be considered due to failure to provide the required notice.

Section 51.014(a)(9) permits an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies a motion to dismiss a deficient expert report because a challenge to the report’s adequacy also challenges its timeliness.

Sylvia Morrison and Rick Morrison v. Nancy Asamoa, M.D. John McKenna, M.D. Satish Mocherla, M.D. Hayan Orfaly, M.D. Perm · filed 2022-05-12(a)(9)

As such, when the trial court denies a physician or health care provider’s motion to dismiss an expert report as deficient, interlocutory appeal is available under Section 51.014(a)(9) because an attack on the report’s adequacy is always also an attack on the report’s timeliness.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, but delaying a ruling on monetary relief does not turn a granted dismissal into a denial.

Villarreal v. Egna Leon and Julio Leon · filed 2023-02-14(a)(12)

The fact that the trial court did not immediately rule on appellant’s request for monetary relief did not make the interlocutory order the “deni[al of] a motion to dismiss” that would be immediately appealable.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss.

Erin McCain and Marc a Townley v. Linda a Lanier · filed 2023-08-31(a)(12)

The Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that a person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court that denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(12). Thus, to the extent appellants appeal from the portion of the trial court’s orders denying their TCPA motion to dismiss, we have jurisdiction over that portion of this appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a governmental unit’s motion to dismiss its employee under Section 101.106(e).

Acclaim Physician Group, Inc. v. Kierra Wright and Domoniqe Jackson · filed 2023-10-19(a)(8)

For these reasons, we hold that Acclaim is a governmental unit and that we have jurisdiction to review—as a Section 51.014(a)(8) interlocutory appeal—the trial court’s denial of Acclaim’s Section 101.106(e) motion to dismiss.

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, but does not give the appellate court jurisdiction over a separate First Amendment challenge.

James E. White, IV, Individually and as a Beneficiary of the Beauregard Brite White Trust (The "Beau Trust") and of the · filed 2025-05-29(a)(12)

To the extent that Plaintiffs’ appeal stretches beyond the denial of their TCPA motion to dismiss, we lack appellate jurisdiction.