in Re Town of Shady Shores, 02-15-00356-CV

Swanson, former Town of Shady Shores secretary, sued for wrongful termination involving the Texas Whistleblower Act and Sabine Pilot claims.
The Town asserted governmental immunity and filed pleas to the jurisdiction; Swanson amended to add Open Meetings Act, due process, and free speech claims.
The trial court granted the Town’s plea to the jurisdiction as to whistleblower and Sabine Pilot claims; Swanson did not appeal those rulings at that time.
The Town sought interlocutory review under 51.014(a)(8) and Swanson sought permissive interlocutory relief; a broad stay was triggered by the appeal.
Swanson later sought to appeal the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction; the court dismissed for lack of timely notice and lack of proper permission to appeal.
The court ultimately denied Swanson’s interlocutory appeal and petition for permission to appeal, affirmed the stay pending the Town’s appeal, and dismissed the remaining issues for want of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the Town’s 51.014(a)(8) interlocutory appeal proper?	Swanson argues cross-appeal timing under Rule 26.1(d) makes it timely.	Town contends the appeal rests on the immunity ruling, properly within 51.014(a)(8).	Yes for the immunity ruling; but the interlocutory appeal filed by Swanson is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Does the automatic stay under 51.014(b) require mandamus relief?	Town sought mandamus to enforce stay.	Swanson argues stay violated; trial court actions stayed.	Mandamus relief denied because no post-stay rulings by the trial court justify relief; stay remains in effect pending appeal.
Is Swanson's notice of appeal timely under Rule 26.1(d) as a cross-appeal?	Swanson relies on Rule 26.1(d) to timely file after Town’s notice.	Time limits for accelerated appeals apply strictly.	Untimely; Swanson’s notice of appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Was Swanson's petition for permission to appeal properly before the court?	Requests permission to appeal the September 30, 2015 order.	Swanson failed to obtain a written order granting permission and filed improperly.	Petition to appeal denied for lack of jurisdiction; Swanson failed to satisfy 51.014(d) requirements.

Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2004) (defines scope of 51.014(a)(8) review and immunity focus)
Ware v. Miller, 82 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002) (supports appellate jurisdiction over immunity rulings)
Montgomery Cty. v. Fuqua, 22 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000) (illustrates limits of standing or jurisdiction challenges in 51.014 context)
City of El Campo v. Rubio, 980 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998) (exercising jurisdiction over parts of order denying immunity-based plea to jurisdiction)
In re Tex. Educ. Agency, 441 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (illustrates stay and coercive-relief considerations in 51.014 proceedings)
University of the Incarnate Word, 469 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015) (mandamus relief when stay is violated; enforcement duties of courts)
Sw. Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (addresses timing and finality of appeals from interlocutory rulings)