Court Opinion

ID: 9775415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:57:47.86805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:25.953253
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the denial of reconsideration en banc because I believe the relators are not entitled to an interlocutory appeal.
In 1993 the Legislature enacted Tex.Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code § 51.014(6), which permits members of the electronic or print media to challenge the denial of a motion for summary judgment when the grounds for the motion are based on (1) the free speech or free press clause of the First Amendment, (2) the Texas Constitution article I, section 8, or (3) Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 73.
Section 3 of the legislation enacting section 51.014(6) states:
(a) This Act takes effect September 1, 1993.
(b) This Act shall not apply to any matters in litigation prior to the effective date of this Act.
(c) This Act applies only to the appeal of an interlocutory order from a court if the order was rendered on or after the effective date of this Act. An interlocutory order rendered before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the order was rendered, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
Act of May 25, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 855, § 3,1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 3365, 3366.
The underlying lawsuit was filed on August 11, 1993, and thus the “matter” was in litigation before the effective date of the Act.1 See H & C Communications, Inc. v. Reed’s *47Food Int'l, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ) (no interlocutory appeal in suit filed before effective date, even though motion for summary judgment was filed after effective date). Therefore, I do not think the relators are entitled to an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion for summary judgment, but must wait to raise the legal issue of their constitutional and statutory privileges in an appeal following the rendition of judgment. If the rela-tors are not entitled to an interlocutory appeal, they are not entitled to mandamus.
I would grant reconsideration en banc and deny mandamus relief.
Dissent from denial of reconsideration en banc joined by OLIVER-PARROTT, C.J.

. I recognize the issue is more complex than this. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., one of the relators, was not joined as a party until after the effective date of the Act. However, the Act specifically states that it "shall not apply to any matters in litigation prior to the effective date of this Act”; the Act does not state that it "shall not apply to any parties present in litigation prior to the effective date of this Act." (Emphasis added).