the City of Houston v. the Estate of Kenneth Samuel Jones, 388 S.W.3d 663

The City of Houston was sued and moved to dismiss via a plea to the jurisdiction; the plea was denied and the City did not appeal that denial.
Months later the City filed an amended plea to the jurisdiction and pursued an interlocutory appeal from the denial of that amended plea; the court of appeals dismissed part of the appeal but addressed merits of another part.
Jones alleged that the City breached a settlement agreement arising from a prior demolition incident after a continuance and later amended petition deleting original claims and adding breach claims.
On remand, the City argued immunity defenses under Lawson and contested 271.152; Jones asserted that 271.152 did not waive immunity because it applies only to contracts for goods/services.
The probate court denied the City’s amended plea and treated it as a motion to reconsider the 2006 plea; the City sought interlocutory review, and the court of appeals granted partial jurisdiction but limited based on a new argument.
The Texas Supreme Court held the amended plea was substantively a motion to reconsider the 2006 plea, thus no new issues were raised; the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the merits and the appeal should be dismissed in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended plea constitutes interlocutory appealable evidence	Jones	City	Amended plea was a motion to reconsider; no new issue; no jurisdiction
Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review new grounds	Jones	City	No jurisdiction; new argument was reiteration, not a new ground
Whether section 271.152 waiver could apply to the settlement contract	Jones	City	271.152 did not waive immunity because terms were not stated; but issue considered as part of reconsideration
Whether 51.014 interlocutory review should have been granted for this amended plea	Jones	City	Denied; amended plea did not present a new waiver ground
Whether appellate process would be undermined by allowing new grounds on reconsideration	Jones	City	Yes; policy favors strict 20-day appellate deadlines

Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (defines narrow scope of interlocutory appeal from plea to jurisdiction)
Jackson v. Bally Total Fitness Corp., 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) (limits interlocutory appeals from class certification decisions)
Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (claims that waivers may be alleged by statute or permission)
City of Houston v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2002) (waivers of immunity considerations under Local Government Code)
De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 933 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1996) (interlocutory review when class certification issues affect class status)
In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (20-day deadline for interlocutory appeals; rule 26.1(b) strictness)
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) (jurisdictional limits on interlocutory appeals from order denials)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. of Dallas v. Margulis, 11 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. 2000) (interlocutory review standards and jurisdictional limits)
Denton Cnty. v. Huther, 43 S.W.3d 665 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (interlocutory appeal from denial of plea to jurisdiction; lack of jurisdiction doctrine)