Kenneth Mark Dorrough v. John Murray Faircloth and Helen Bowen, 443 S.W.3d 278

Dorrough, a commissioned deputy game warden, entered the Faircloths’ lakefront property to investigate a complaint about fishing access, questioned Helen Bowen and then John Faircloth, and left after a heated exchange.
The Faircloths sued Dorrough for trespass to real property, threat of bodily injury, intrusion on seclusion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought a temporary injunction.
Dorrough moved for summary judgment based on immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act’s election of remedies; the trial court denied, and an interlocutory appeal followed.
Dorrough later invoked common-law official immunity (citing Filarsky) after the trial court’s denial, and the appellate court analyzed subject-matter jurisdiction and the immunity defense.
The appellate court ultimately held that official immunity extends to deputy game wardens, Dorrough proved immunity, the Faircloths failed to raise a genuine dispute, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction, reversing and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal	Dorrough asserted jurisdiction under 51.014(a)(5) (immunity-based appeal).	Faircloths argued lack of timely notice and jurisdiction.	The court had jurisdiction; notice was timely and §51.014(a)(5) applicable.
Whether common-law official immunity extends to a deputy game warden	Dorrough (as deputy game warden) is protected by official immunity.	Faircloths contend immunity does not apply to Dorrough’s conduct.	Yes, official immunity extends to deputy game wardens.
Whether Dorrough acted within the scope of authority	Dorrough investigated a complaint and questioned occupants within his official role.	Faircloths argued misidentification and scope flaws.	Dorrough acted within the scope of authority.
Whether Dorrough performed a discretionary function in investigating the complaint	Investigating complaints is discretionary; Dorrough acted within discretion.	Investigation was mandatory or improper.	Yes, the investigation was discretionary.
Whether Dorrough acted in good faith to satisfy official-immunity requirements	Dorrough’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances.	Faircloths show no reasonable deputy would have acted as Dorrough did.	Dorrough demonstrated good faith; Faircloths failed to show no reasonable deputy would act similarly.

Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (Supreme Court 2012) (expanded official-immunity protections for public- and law-enforcement-like duties)
Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2004) (defined purposes and scope of official immunity; good-faith standard)
Telthorster v. Tennell, 92 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. 2002) (standard for good faith and immunity elements)
Chambers v. Starr, 883 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. 1993) (standard of good faith and discretionary function context)
Green v. Alford, 274 S.W.3d 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (extension of official immunity to public-entity-like roles (volunteer firefighter))