Blogs

In re Madison

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-1073 (October 31, 2025)

Per Curiam Opinion (linked here)

“When a party appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, all trial court proceedings are stayed by operation of law, and the statutory stay remains in effect until the appeal has been resolved”—more specifically, until the Court of Appeals “signals that the appeal is resolved” by issuing its mandate. Parties must wait until the mandate issues before resuming proceedings in the trial court—a lesson learned the hard way here. 

Madison sued an HOA and a law firm. The law firm filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, which the trial court denied. But the law firm appealed that denial pursuant to TCPRC § 51.014(a)(12), and the Court of Appeals reversed, rendered judgment for the firm, and remanded. After the appeals court denied her motion for rehearing and for reconsideration en banc, Madison timely sought review in the Texas Supreme Court. Even before Madison filed her petition for review, however, the law firm moved for an award of attorney fees under the TCPA, relying on the appeals court’s judgment, and the trial court granted that motion.

The court of appeals declined to set aside the attorney-fees order on mandamus, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Under TCPRC § 51.014(b), the appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss under the TCPA “stays all … proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that appeal.” The Supreme Court explained that an appellate court’s judgment “takes effect” and the appeal is resolved “when the mandate is issued” (quoting Tex. R. App. P. 18.6)—not upon issuance of the appeals court’s opinion and judgment. “When the appellate mandate issues, the automatic stay [under TCPRC § 15.014(b)] expires,” not before. And under Tex. R. App. P. 18.1, a court of appeals cannot issue its mandate until after the Supreme Court has completed or denied a review that has been timely requested or the time to seek such review has expired.

Here, the law firm moved for its fees under the TCPRC, and the trial court granted that motion before the appeals court issued its mandate—even before it could have issued its mandate, since Madison timely sought Supreme Court review of the appeals court’s decision on the merits, and the Supreme Court had not yet ruled. As a result, “the court of appeals’ judgment was not final and had not yet taken effect, so the automatic stay remained operative, and the trial court had no authority to act.” The Supreme Court held, therefore, that “[e]ntertaining and granting the motion for attorney’s fees before the court of appeals’ mandate had issued—indeed, before the court of appeals was authorized to issue its mandate—was an abuse of discretion,” and so the Court granted Madison’s mandamus petition.

LRH Real Estate, LLC v. Dallas County

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-25-00771-CV (October 17, 2025)

Chief Justice Koch (Order, linked here) 

Rashad Haiddar, a non-attorney acting pro se, filed an appeal and an appellants’ brief on behalf of himself, LRH Real Estate, LLC, and Autochoice Garland TX, LLC. But neither Haiddar, individually, nor Autochoice was a party to the judgment from which Haiddar appealed. In an order striking appellants’ brief and threatening dismissal of the appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals reminded the parties and practitioners of two fundamental rules:

• “Generally, only parties of record who have been personally aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment have standing to appeal the judgment,” citing State v. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d 783, 787 (Tex. 2015); and

• “[A]ny aggrieved corporate party must be represented by counsel,” citing Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam).

The Court warned that the appeal would be dismissed unless (a) the corporate parties, LRH Real Estate and Autochoice, retained an attorney to represent them in the appeal, and (b) Haiddar and Autochoice demonstrated that, contrary to the general rule, they do somehow have standing to pursue the appeal of a judgment to which they were not parties.

In re Bonnie Elizabeth Parker

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-24-00809-CV (August 27, 2025)

Chief Justice Koch (Opinion, linked here), and Justices Goldstein and Garcia

In memory and in lore, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are inseparable. In fact, however, Bonnie was interred at Crown Hill Memorial Park, while Clyde rests in a Western Heights Cemetery plot several miles away. Invoking Texas Health & Safety Code § 711.004, Bonnie’s niece sought to reunite the two by having Bonnie’s remains removed from Crown Heights and reinterred next to Clyde at Western Heights. But § 711.004(a) allows for disinterment only “with the written consent of the cemetery organization operating the cemetery,” and Crown Hill refused. Subsection 711.004(c), however, provides nevertheless that, when the consents required by subsection 711.004(a) cannot be obtained, remains “may be removed by permission of a county court of the county in which the cemetery is located.” So, off to county court went Bonnie’s niece, where she obtained a permanent injunction ordering Crown Hill to enter into arrangements for Bonnie’s disinterment within 10 days after the judgment.

Crown Hill appealed. When the trial court refused to stay its judgment pending appeal, Crown Hill sought emergency relief in the Dallas Court of Appeals, and that Court obliged.

Treating Crown Hill’s filing as a motion for review under TRAP 24.4, the appeals court held that when a judgment is for something other than money or an interest in property, the trial court ordinarily “must set the amount and type of security that the judgment debtor must post” and allow the appellant to supersede, per TRAP 24.2(a)(3). Here, the Court said, the “appeal will become moot if Crown Hill is not permitted to suspend enforcement of the judgment.” By contrast, allowing Bonnie’s remains to remain at Crown Hill where they have been since 1945 “perfectly preserves the status quo and the parties’ rights pending appeal.” So, the Court reversed the trial court’s order denying a stay, set the amount of Crown Hill’s bond at $0, and suspended enforcement of the trial court’s judgment pending disposition of the appeal—leaving Bonnie and Clyde apart, at least for a little while longer.

FCA US LLC v. Adient US, LLC

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-25-00836-CV (July 28, 2025)

Justices Smith, Clinton (Opinion, linked here), and Barbare

Petitions to pursue permissive appeals continue to fare poorly, with the Courts of Appeals insisting on strict compliance with TRCP 168 and TCPRC § 51.014(d) and denying petitions that don’t dot every  “i” and cross every “t.” 

Adient secured a summary judgment dismissing FCA’s claims against it. The trial court denied FCA’s motion to reconsider, but granted its request for leave to pursue a permissive interlocutory appeal pursuant to TRCP 168 and TCPRC § 51.014(d). The court found (1) that its “rulings involve a controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”—specifically, the scope and application of “the component-part-supplier doctrine, announced in Bostrom Seating, Inc. v. Crane Carrier Co., 140 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004)” and an exception to that doctrine—and also (2) that an interlocutory appeal of the issue “may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation”—i.e., it addressed both prongs of Rule 168 and § 51.014(d), or so it thought.

The Dallas Court of Appeals rejected FCA’s petition to pursue its permissive interlocutory appeal. The Court explained that it “strictly construe[s] applications for permissive appeals because statutes allowing for interlocutory appeals are an exception to the general rule that only final judgments are appealable.” Here, the Court said, the trial court’s order did not comply with Rule 168’s requirement that it “state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” It just broadly asserted that an interlocutory appeal might advance ultimate termination of the litigation, without saying why that was so.  The appeals court held that, “The order’s rote recitation of possible material advancement—without an explanation of ‘why’ immediate appeal may advance ultimate termination of the litigation—fails to satisfy an express requirement of Rule 168.” The appeals court rejected FCA’s argument that the “why” could be inferred from the trial court’s order and its context—i.e., that absent an interlocutory appeal, the purported “summary-judgment error could result in an unnecessary trial without Adient as a party.” Strict compliance with Rule 168 requires that the trial court’s order “state” why an interlocutory appeal may materially advance termination of the litigation.

Texas Dep’t of Family and Protective Services v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 23-0192  (May 30, 2025) 

Opinion by Justice Young (linked here)

Ken Carroll

Faced with deciding “whether Texas courts are constitutionally authorized to adjudicate moot cases that raise questions of considerable public importance,” the Supreme Court of Texas emphatically said, “No.” 

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services adopted a rule that authorized state licenses for two residential facilities at which the federal government detained mothers and children after their illegal entry into the United States. Grassroots, a nonprofit civil-rights organization, and several mothers detained in the licensed facilities sued to challenge that rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking to prohibit the detention of children there. The trial court granted summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid, and enjoined the department from granting licenses under it. The State appealed. 

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services adopted a rule that authorized state licenses for two residential facilities at which the federal government detained mothers and children after their illegal entry into the United States. Grassroots, a nonprofit civil-rights organization, and several mothers detained in the licensed facilities sued to challenge that rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking to prohibit the detention of children there. The trial court granted summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid, and enjoined the department from granting licenses under it. The State appealed. 

By the time that appeal neared resolution, however, the plaintiffs were no longer detained at the facilities. The court of appeals therefore concluded that the entire case was “moot by definition.” But rather than dismissing, the appeals court invoked a “so-called ‘public-interest exception’ to mootness, under which it could reach the merits despite having no live dispute [before it] involving the parties to the litigation.” The public-interest exception, the court explained, “allows appellate review of a question of considerable public importance if that question is capable of repetition between either the same parties or other members of the public but for some reason evades appellate review.” Here, “the evidence establishe[d] that the average length of detention [at the facilities] is eleven days, a period too short to complete litigation.” So, the court ruled, the exception applied. It then agreed with the trial court on the merits, finding the rule invalid. 

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that a “‘public-interest exception’ violates the Texas Constitution’s justiciability limitations.” “Mootness is a constitutional limitation on judicial authority,” the Court emphasized, and not “a matter of judicial administration or prudence.” The Court provided a lengthy analysis of the concept of constitutional justiciability, of which mootness and “the core requirement of a live dispute” (and the corollary ban on advisory judicial opinions) are one part. “[T]he only proper judgment in a moot case,” the Supreme Court said, “is one of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction”—regardless of whether the case is on appeal or still in the trial court—which the Court ruled is the disposition the court of appeals should have reached in this case. 

The Court explained that the “capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception” also did not allow the court of appeals to proceed to the merits. That exception, the Supreme Court said, “applies only in rare circumstances.” Specifically, “a plaintiff must prove that ‘(1) the challenged action was too short in duration to be litigated fully before the action ceased or expired; and (2) a reasonable expectation exists that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.’” The Court rejected application of that doctrine where, as here, the identical question is capable of repetition, even likely to be repeated, but involving other persons.