Opinion ID: 894512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conflicts Jurisdiction

Text: When there is no dissent in the court of appeals, this Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals only if the court of appeals' decision holds differently or conflicts with a prior decision of another court of appeals or of the supreme court on a question of law material to a decision of the case. Tex. Gov't Code 22.001(a)(2); [3] Schein v. Stromboe, 102 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex.2002); Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. White, 46 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex.2001). Two decisions conflict for purposes of establishing our jurisdiction under section 22.001(a)(2) when the two cases are so similar that the decision in one case is necessarily conclusive of the decision in the other. Schein, 102 S.W.3d at 687-88; White, 46 S.W.3d at 867. The conflict must be on the very question of law actually involved and determined, in respect of an issue in both cases, the test being whether one would operate to overrule the other in case they were both rendered by the same court. Christy v. Williams, 156 Tex. 555, 298 S.W.2d 565, 568-69 (1957) (citation omitted). The Department contends that this Court has jurisdiction over its interlocutory appeal because the court of appeals' decision here conflicts with our opinion in Bland. In Bland, we held that a trial court may consider evidence and must do so when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. 34 S.W.3d at 555 (emphasis added). While recognizing that a dilatory plea does not authorize an inquiry so far into the substance of the claims presented that plaintiffs are required to put on their case simply to establish jurisdiction, we explained that because a court must not act without determining that it has subject-matter jurisdiction to do so, it should hear evidence as necessary to determine the issue before proceeding with the case. Id. at 554. The court should, of course, confine itself to the evidence relevant to the jurisdictional issue. Id. at 555. In Bland, we included examples of when relevant evidence may be considered in determining whether jurisdiction has been established. See id. at 554. We also observed that when the defendant contends that the amount in controversy falls below the trial court's jurisdictional limit, the trial court should limit its inquiry to the pleadings. Id. In that situation, we concluded, the plaintiff's pleadings are determinative unless the defendant specifically alleges that the amount was pleaded merely as a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining jurisdiction. Id. In this case, the court of appeals inaccurately stated and then misapplied Bland's holding. 55 S.W.3d at 650-52. The court of appeals held that an inquiry behind the factual allegations pled in support of subject matter jurisdiction was improper unless the Department specifically alleged that the Mirandas' allegations were pled merely as a sham to wrongfully obtain jurisdiction. Id. at 652. This conflicts with our holding in Bland that a court must consider evidence when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. 34 S.W.3d at 555; see also County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 556-57 (Tex.2002) (considering pleadings and limited jurisdictional evidence in evaluating forseeability element of premises defect claim under the Tort Claims Act); Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583, 587 (Tex.2001) (examining pleadings and limited jurisdictional evidence to determine whether plaintiff affirmatively demonstrated waiver of sovereign immunity); White, 46 S.W.3d at 868 (analyzing the facts alleged by the plaintiff and to the extent relevant, evidence submitted by the parties, in considering whether plaintiff stated a claim for injuries caused by motor-driven equipment under the Tort Claims Act). In Bland, our preclusion of a trial court's inquiry behind the facts pled in determining subject matter jurisdiction was limited to the jurisdictional amount. 34 S.W.3d at 554. Even this bar could be lifted, and evidence of the jurisdictional amount considered, in circumstances in which an adverse party asserts that the amount in controversy was pled as a sham to obtain jurisdiction. [4] Id. That circumstance is not at issue here. Thus, the court of appeals' holding conflicts with the same question of law that we decided in Bland, and the opinions cannot stand together. Schein, 102 S.W.3d at 689. This conflict provides the basis for our jurisdiction to consider the merits of the plea. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.001(a)(2).