Opinion ID: 895412
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interlocutory Appeals

Text: Ordinarily, this Court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from an interlocutory order.8 Here, however, we have jurisdiction over this case because the court of appeals’ decision conflicts with 6 __ S.W .3d __, __. 7 54 T EX . S U P . C T . J. 1012 (May 27, 2011). 8 See T EX . G O V ’T C O D E § 22.225(b). 4 prior decisions of this Court.9 The court of appeals held that, because no named plaintiff had standing on all of the class’s claims, no named plaintiff had standing at all.10 Previously, we have held that a plaintiff’s lack of standing to bring some, but not all, of his claims just deprives the court of jurisdiction over those discrete claims.11 Given this conflict, we conclude that this case does not fall outside the statutory scope of our appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals.