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

Section 51.014(a)(12) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, but does not authorize review of 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 2025-08-26(a)(12)

To the extent that Plaintiffs’ appeal stretches beyond the denial of their TCPA motion to dismiss, we lack appellate jurisdiction. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (“We strictly apply statutes granting interlocutory appeals because they are a narrow exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(12) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from denial of TCPA motion to dismiss).

Section 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, but that appeal does not reopen the merits of the original injunction; the party seeking dissolution must ordinarily show changed circumstances.

Soon Hwa Lee and Alice Lee Chan, as of the Estate of Sik Lee v. Sang Ku Park · filed 2026-03-10(a)(4)

In a dispute about dissolution, the law treats the injunction as valid when issued and asks only whether something has changed since that time to make the injunction infirm for reasons that did not exist at the time of issuance. If matters were otherwise, the short deadline for appealing the grant of an injunction would become illusory, because a litigant could just file a motion to dissolve at any time and thereby reopen the right to appeal.

Section 51.014(a)(8) does not permit a separate interlocutory appeal from the denial of an amended plea to the jurisdiction that raises no new ground of immunity.

Socorro Independent School District v. Magallanes · filed 2025-10-16(a)(8)

Once the trial court denies a plea to the jurisdiction, any amended plea that does not assert a new ground is substantively a motion to reconsider. ... Because the pleas are substantially the same, we consider the second plea to be a motion to reconsider the trial court’s February 28, 2025 order.