Veronica L. Davis and James A. Davis v. State Farm Lloyds Texas and Gerald Krouse, 03-16-00091-CV

Veronica L. Davis (an attorney) and her son James sued State Farm Lloyds Texas and Gerald Krouse over multiple auto-accident claims and a separate homeowners/mold claim; the homeowners claim was severed and later resolved in State Farm's favor.
The trial court severed automobile claims from the homeowners claim and set the auto case (cause no. D-1-GN-13-001724) for trial; trial was continued from July to November 16, 2015.
On the morning of the November trial the Davises were unprepared, an unverified motion for continuance was reportedly denied, and the Davises filed a notice of nonsuit; the court then signed an order dismissing the case.
One month later the Davises moved to reinstate, arguing the court’s denial of the continuance forced their nonsuit; the trial court denied the motion to reinstate.
The Davises appealed, challenging multiple interlocutory orders (venue transfer, discovery/sanctions rulings, evidentiary rulings), the indigency contest as to James, and the denial of reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Finality of dismissal	Dismissal was interlocutory because other claims/parties remained (contract and other accident claims)	Dismissal disposed of all claims/parties in that cause number and is final	Dismissal was final under Lehmann; issue overruled
Denial of motion to transfer venue	Trial court erred in denying transfer	Nonsuit vitiated interlocutory orders; transfer ruling moot	Nonsuit rendered venue order moot and unappealable; issue overruled
Denial of continuance / evidentiary rulings / discovery rulings	Court abused discretion (denial of continuance forced nonsuit); evidentiary/discovery errors affected fairness	Continuance was unverified (Rule 251); nonsuit vitiated many interlocutory complaints	Continuance denial would be presumptively proper because unverified; interlocutory rulings moot where nonsuit applies; issues overruled
Denial of motion to reinstate	Court abused discretion by refusing to reinstate after its denial of continuance forced nonsuit	Plaintiffs were unprepared after years on file and months of scheduling; trial court did not abuse discretion	Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying reinstatement; issue overruled

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality of dismissal disposing of all claims)
Villafani v. Trejo, 251 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. 2008) (nonsuit can vitiate interlocutory orders)
University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon ex rel. Schultz, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2006) (nonsuit moots interlocutory jurisdictional appeals)
In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1997) (nonsuit vitiates interlocutory orders except certain merits decisions)
General Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1990) (dismissal dissolves temporary equitable relief and renders related appeals moot)
Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. 1986) (presumption of no abuse where motion for continuance lacks affidavit)
Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Const. Co., 913 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. 1995) (standard of review for motions to reinstate: abuse of discretion)