Jobe v. Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that later motion for summary judgment was easily distinguished from original plea to the jurisdiction based on extensive evidence that trial court considered for first time
• explaining that Texas Supreme Court “considers ‘plea to the jurisdiction’ not to refer to a ‘particular procedural vehicle,’ but rather to the substance of the issue raised”
• explaining that “[u]nder Jones, the touchstone of our analysis [is] whether the later plea to the jurisdiction [is] a new and distinct motion or a mere motion to reconsider”
• explaining that “[u]nder Jones, the touchstone of our analysis [is] whether the later plea to the jurisdiction [is] a new and distinct motion or a mere motion to reconsider”
• explaining that “[u]nder [Estate of] Jones, the touchstone of our analysis [is] whether the later plea to the jurisdiction [is] a new and distinct motion or a mere motion to reconsider”
• stating that “[t]his Court considers ‘plea to the jurisdiction’ not to refer to a ‘particular procedural vehicle,’ but rather to the substance of the issue raised,” and holding that defendant’s Rule 91a motion constituted a plea to the jurisdiction “for interlocutory-appeal purposes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).