Court Opinion

ID: 9652292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:22:00.999056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:50.144540
License: Public Domain

RICHARD H. EDELMAN Justice,
concurring.
The dismissal in this case could only properly be granted and affirmed based on a jurisdictional issue, such as governmental immunity from suit. Preemption is not *251such an issue, either generally,1 or in this particular case, because the county court will have subject matter jurisdiction over the condemnation action, even if some portions of the condemnation statute are preempted. Beyond recognizing that the dismissal cannot properly be affirmed on the preemption issue in any event (because it is not jurisdictional), any ruling in this appeal on preemption would go beyond the jurisdictional issues governing the dismissal to reach the merits of the underlying claims and thus be an advisory opinion which we have no jurisdiction to issue.2 Therefore, our decision in this appeal should not address the preemption issue on the merits.

. See, e.g., Mills v. Warner Lambert Co., 157 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex.2005).

. See, e.g., McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cortez, 66 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex.2001).