Deborah Swan v. Mitzi Dixon, 09-25-00168-CV

Dixon filed a petition for negligence against Swan in Montgomery County, claiming Dixon was injured by a dog at Swan's residence.
Swan moved for sanctions and dismissal with prejudice and separately moved to dismiss under Rule 91a, arguing Dixon's claims were groundless and filed in bad faith.
Dixon filed a Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice under Rule 162 on April 24, 2025, and argued the nonsuit mooted Swan's Rule 91a motion and occurred before the May 9 hearing.
Swan opposed the nonsuit, alleging Dixon's conduct was manipulative and seeking dismissal with prejudice and sanctions.
The trial court granted Dixon’s nonsuit without prejudice on May 9, 2025, disposing of all claims and parties, and Swan appealed.
The appellate court held that the nonsuit extinguished the claims from the filing date and implicitly denied Swan’s sanctions motions, and affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 91a ruling before nonsuit	Swan argues the court should rule on 91a motion prior to nonsuit.	Dixon contends the nonsuit moots the 91a motion if filed before the hearing.	No reversible error; nonsuit preceded hearing.
Nonsuit and dispositive motions	Swan contends the court erred by granting nonsuit without ruling on pending dispositive motions.	Dixon asserts sanctions/ Rule 91a motions were not properly ripe; nonsuit controls.	No error; nonsuit valid and dispositive motions effectively unresolved.
Effective date retroactivity	Swan claims the nonsuit date should align with May 9 submission date.	Dixon maintains April 24, 2025, as the date the nonsuit took effect.	Nonsuit effective April 24, 2025; retroactivity not improper.
Sanctions post-nonsuit	Swan argues the court should rule on sanctions despite nonsuit.	Dixon argues sanctions could be pursued only if supported by evidence and proper timing.	Court did not abuse discretion; sanctions were not supported by admissible evidence.

Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2006) (nonsuit extinguishes claim from filing, but does not affect pending relief rights)
BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. 1990) (plaintiff’s right to nonsuit is unqualified and absolute when no claim for affirmative relief exists)
Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2008) (defines affirmative relief and independent recoverable relief concepts)
Gen. Land Off. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1990) (defensive pleadings must show independent basis for relief)
Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. 2011) (sanctions and rule implications in Rule 162 contexts)
In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (implicit rulings may be presumed when not explicitly ruled on)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions; evidentiary consideration)
Villa v. Unifund CCR Partners, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (sanctions burden and evidentiary requirements)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (evidentiary standards for sanctions; burden on movant)
Thuesen v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 487 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (rule 91a timing and effect on nonsuit considerations)