Glenn Herbert Johnson v. Harris County, 01-15-01064-CV

Background

Glenn Herbert Johnson sued multiple Harris County entities and the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) asserting common-law torts and inverse condemnation.
HCAD moved to dismiss based on limitations and doctrines including governmental immunity, collateral estoppel, and res judicata; the trial court granted HCAD’s plea and dismissed HCAD with prejudice on November 25, 2015.
The Harris County Defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment arguing governmental immunity barred tort claims and that limitations/estoppel/res judicata barred other claims; the trial court granted their plea/motion as to tort claims on December 9, 2015, leaving only inverse condemnation claims pending.
Johnson filed a notice of appeal on March 8, 2016, seeking review of the December 9 Order; the Harris County Defendants moved to dismiss that appeal as untimely.
The Court of Appeals concluded the December 9 Order was interlocutory but appealable under section 51.014(a)(8) only if the accelerated appeal timetable was met or properly extended; Johnson failed to obtain the trial-court finding required to invoke Rule 306a tolling, and his March 8 notice was untimely.
The court granted the motion to dismiss Johnson’s appeal as to the Harris County Defendants; Johnson’s appeal of the November 25 order dismissing HCAD remains pending.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the December 9, 2015 order is appealable despite being interlocutory	Johnson contends lack of timely notice of the order extended appeal time under Rule 306a	Harris County Defendants assert the appeal deadline expired and no tolling was obtained	Court: Order was interlocutory but appealable under §51.014(a)(8); however appeal was untimely because Rule 306a tolling was not shown
Whether Rule 306a extended the appellate deadline	Johnson argues clerk’s failure to mail notice delayed his knowledge, so Rule 306a applies	Defendants contend Johnson did not obtain the required trial-court finding proving delayed notice	Court: Johnson did not file the sworn motion/obtain the written trial-court finding required by Rule 306a, so no extension applied
Whether an accelerated appeal deadline may be extended by filing within the 15-day Rule 26.3 window	Johnson impliedly relies on equitable or relation-back doctrines to perfect appeal	Defendants maintain strict accelerated deadlines apply absent proper extension	Court: Accelerated deadlines are strict; rule 26.3 extension requires timely motion or implied extension; none cured the late filing here
Whether the March 8, 2016 notice could be treated as amending a separate timely notice (relation back)	Johnson effectively attempts to rely on his timely appeal of the November 25 order to perfect appeal of December 9 order	Defendants argue separate interlocutory orders cannot be amended to add a different order	Court: Notices do not relate back to permit appeal of a different interlocutory order; March 8 notice did not perfect appeal of December 9 order

Key Cases Cited

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas 2001) (final-judgment requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. 1966) (finality requires disposal of all parties and issues)
Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1998) (statutory authorization required for interlocutory appeals)
Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006) (plea to the jurisdiction appeals allowed irrespective of procedural vehicle)
In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (strict deadlines for accelerated appeals)
Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) (implied motion for extension when notice filed in 15-day extension window)
Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC v. McCray, 416 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (Rule 306a may extend appeal deadline if procedural prerequisites met)
Moore Landrey, L.L.P. v. Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C., 126 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (trial-court written finding required to invoke Rule 306a tolling)
Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994) (requirements for extending appellate deadlines based on delayed notice)
Brown Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Mountbatten Sur. Co., 377 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (failure to obtain Rule 306a finding defeats claim of extended appeal period)