Subsequent to the decision in Industrial Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP (No. 20-0174), in which a divided Texas Supreme Court ruled that §51.014(f), CPRC, gives a court of appeals unfettered discretion to deny a permissive interlocutory appeal, the Court has denied review in three cases raising the same issue: Valero Refinery-Texas, LP v. Reannah Vela (No. 20-0117; Corpus Christi Court of Appeals); Dristi Shrestha v. Enya Hernandez Gonzalez (No. 21-1034; Dallas Court of Appeals); and Mary Patricia Dougherty v. The Northern Trust Company (No. 22-0016; Houston [1st] Court of Appeals). In per curiam opinions in each case, the Court observed that the courts of appeals did not provide the basic reasons for denying the appeals as required by TRAP 47.1 (they all used the same formulaic approach as the Houston [1st] Court of Appeals did in Blanchard). The Court also reiterated that it had jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order on the merits but declined to exercise that jurisdiction in these cases. In light of Blanchard and these cases, perhaps the courts of appeals will take the hint and elaborate a bit more when they deny a permissive interlocutory appeal going forward.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This