By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use which include the use of cookies to improve your website experience, provide additional security, and remember you when you return.

Texas Supreme Court Narrows Interlocutory Appeals in Venue Disputes Involving Multiple Plaintiffs

Article

In a significant clarification of venue appeal procedures, the Texas Supreme Court has narrowed the circumstances under which parties can bring interlocutory appeals following the denial of a motion to transfer venue in cases involving multiple plaintiffs.

Section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code has been interpreted by many intermediate appellate courts to broadly permit interlocutory appeals in multi-plaintiff cases where the trial court denies a motion to transfer. This interpretation effectively allowed parties to challenge almost any venue ruling when more than one plaintiff was involved.

However, in Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P., et al. v. Sayre, et al., No. 24-0040, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously held that the statute’s interlocutory-appeal exception is narrower. Specifically, the Court ruled that such appeals are only appropriate when the individual plaintiffs rely on different venue facts to support their claims.

In the Rush Truck case, the plaintiffs—the estate of a decedent and her parents—each asserted venue under the same facts and legal theories. As a result, the Court determined that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal, because the statutory requirements for an appeal under § 15.003 were not met.

Key Takeaways:

  • Interlocutory appeals under § 15.003 are only available when different plaintiffs assert venue based on different facts.
  • This decision limits the availability of immediate appellate review in venue disputes, potentially raising the stakes for pre-trial venue challenges at the trial court.
  • Some alternative avenues for pre-trial review remain, such as mandamus relief, although those face high legal hurdles and apply in limited circumstances.
  • Parties should remain diligent in preserving their venue objections for post-judgment appeals, as an erroneous venue ruling remains reversible after trial.

If you have questions about how this ruling may impact your litigation strategy or venue options, our attorneys are available to assist.

Related Capabilities

Related Professional

Jump to Page