Lexplug logoLexplug

Dallas County, Texas v. Roy Logan

Texas Supreme Court
407 S.W.3d 745, 36 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1194, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 945 (2013)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(8), an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider grounds for governmental immunity raised for the first time on interlocutory appeal, even if those specific grounds were not presented to the trial court.


Facts:

  • Roy Logan initiated a lawsuit against Dallas County.
  • Logan asserted legal claims against the County under the Texas Whistleblower Act.
  • The dispute centered on the County's liability for actions alleged by Logan.
  • Dallas County sought to avoid liability by claiming governmental immunity.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dallas County filed a plea to the jurisdiction in the trial court asserting governmental immunity.
  • The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction.
  • Dallas County filed an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas.
  • On appeal, Dallas County raised additional grounds for immunity that were not presented to the trial court.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial.
  • The Court of Appeals refused to consider the new immunity grounds, ruling that its jurisdiction was limited to arguments raised in the trial court.
  • Dallas County filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an appellate court have jurisdiction to consider new arguments regarding governmental immunity in an interlocutory appeal when those arguments were not raised in the trial court?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, an appellate court must consider immunity grounds even if they are first asserted on appeal. Relying on its recent decision in Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, the Court clarified that Section 51.014(a) does not preclude an appellate court from addressing immunity arguments simply because they were not raised in the lower court. The Court acknowledged a previous split among appellate courts regarding this issue but affirmed that the precedent limiting review to grounds raised at trial (Arancibia) is disapproved. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred by refusing to hear Dallas County's new arguments.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the unique nature of subject-matter jurisdiction and governmental immunity in Texas law. By allowing governmental units to raise new immunity arguments on interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas prioritizes the resolution of jurisdictional power over strict procedural waiver rules that typically apply to other types of defenses. This ruling ensures that courts do not exercise jurisdiction over governmental entities when immunity applies, regardless of when the specific argument was articulated. It aligns the Fifth District's jurisprudence with the statewide standard established in Black.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dallas County, Texas v. Roy Logan (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"