Mary Louise Serafine v. Karin Crump, in Her Individual and Official Capacities as Presiding Judge of the 250th Civil District Court of Travis County, Texas Melissa Goodwin, David Puryear, and Bob Pemberton in Their Individual and Official Capacities as Former Justices of the Third Court of Appeals at Austin, Texas, 691 S.W.3d 917

Mary Louise Serafine, proceeding pro se, was found to be a vexatious litigant by a Texas trial court under Chapter 11 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
To be deemed vexatious, the plaintiff must have previously "commenced, prosecuted, or maintained" at least five litigations as a pro se litigant that were finally determined adversely within seven years.
The statutory definition of "litigation" is a "civil action commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court."
The trial court’s vexatious litigant finding was affirmed by the court of appeals, which counted appeals and petitions for review as separate prior litigations.
Serafine appealed, arguing that appeals and petitions for review are part of the same civil action and should not be counted as separate litigations for the vexatious litigant determination.

Issue	Serafine's Argument	Crump's Argument	Held
Whether an appeal or petition for review counts as a separate "litigation" under Chapter 11	An appeal or petition for review is a continuation of the same civil action and should not count as separate litigation	Appeals and petitions for review should be counted as separate prior litigations for vexatious litigant purposes	Court agreed with Serafine: appeals and petitions for review do not count as separate litigations
Application of the statute's definition of "litigation"	The definition encompasses a single civil action even when it moves between courts	Transferring to a new court (e.g., from trial to appellate court) commences a new litigation	Court held the key is whether the same civil action is pending, not the court it is in
Sufficient number of prior adverse litigations	She had fewer than five adverse litigations under the correct interpretation	There were at least five if appeals and review petitions are counted separately	Court found Serafine did not have five prior adverse litigations
Legislative intent and constitutionality	Statute should not curtail petition/open courts rights by counting appellate reviews separately	No relevant counter	Court found no statutory basis for departing from precedent, protecting access to courts

Sanders v. Boeing Co., 680 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2023) (appeals operate as a continuation of the action pending in the trial court)
Tex. Trunk R.R. v. Jackson, 22 S.W. 1030 (Tex. 1893) (proceedings by appeal or writ of error are continuations of the trial court action)
Dignowity v. Fly, 210 S.W. 505 (Tex. 1919) (an appeal continues a pending suit)
Hickcock v. Bell, 46 Tex. 610 (1877) (writ of error is a continuation, not a new suit)