Court Opinion

ID: 9809312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:08:08.573868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:21:02.711735
License: Public Domain

Dissent to order granting appellant’s EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY
Dissenting Opinion by:
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
I dissent to the panel’s granting of appellant’s Emergency Motion to Stay, which stayed all further proceedings, including discovery, at the trial court level. An interlocutory appeal is available only in limited circumstances. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2015). Section 51.014 provides that an interlocutory appeal may be brought after the denial of a special appearance, but the statute does not provide a stay of anything but the trial pending resolution of the appeal. See id. § 51.014(a)(7), (b). Appellant relies on Oryx Capital Int’l, Inc. v. Sage Apartments, L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 432, 437 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.), in an attempt to work around subsection 51.014(b), but that reliance is misplaced because Oryx contained circumstances not present in the case before us. Therefore, I do not believe circumstances exist that would support this court imposing a stay beyond that expressly authorized by subsection 51.014(b).