County of Dallas v. Sempe, No. 05-0022 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(per curiam)
(no conflicts jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal)
Terms: interlocutory appeals, jurisdiction in the Texas Supreme Court, conflicts jurisdiction, plea to the jurisdiction,
denial of jurisdictional plea, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, sovereign, governmental immunity, un-granted petitions
for review
See more --> Texas Supreme Court Decisions / Opinions
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COUNTY OF DALLAS v. CHRISTOPHER SHAWN SEMPE AND CARL RAYMOND SEMPE, SOLE HEIRS OF
CHARLES RAY SEMPE; from Dallas County; 5th district (05- 03-01603-CV, 151 S.W.3d 291, 12-07-04)
The Court withdraws its order of May 26, 2006, granting the petition for review, as the petition was improvidently
granted. The petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
County of Dallas v. Sempe (Tex. 2008)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Argued November 15, 2006
PER CURIAM
This Court’s jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction is limited by
statute to cases in which the justices of the court of appeals “disagree on a question of law material to the decision”
or in which the court of appeals’ opinion conflicts with a prior decision of this Court or of another Texas court of
appeals. Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 22.001(a)(1)–(2), 22.225(c). In this case, no dissenting opinion was filed in the court of
appeals, 151 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004), and after reviewing the parties’ briefs and the relevant
authorities, we do not find that a conflict exists with another state court opinion. Dallas County argues that the court
of appeals’ decision conflicts with Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978), and Moor v. County of Alameda,
411 U.S. 693, 703 (1973), and though the Legislature’s narrow grant of jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing
interlocutory appeals that may conflict with decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Dallas County argues that
we may consider Robertson and Moor in determining our conflicts jurisdiction, citing Eichelberger v. Eichelberger,
582 S.W.2d 392, 397 (Tex. 1979) (holding that, in an appeal from a final judgment, this Court has jurisdiction to
review a decision of the court of appeals that conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court). Even if
Dallas County’s argument is correct, we find no conflict with the cases cited sufficient to invoke this Court’s
jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction to review this decision before final judgment, we must withdraw the order granting
the petition for review as improvidently granted and dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
56.1.
OPINION DELIVERED: March 28, 2008