the City of Houston v. the Estate of Kenneth Samuel Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that amended plea which made a new argument but asserted no new grounds was substantively a motion to reconsider
• concluding that City’s new reason why it believed its immunity had not been waived was change in “form without substance” that did not reset appellate clock
• holding that time period in which city could bring interlocutory appeal from denial of its plea to the jurisdiction under civil practice and remedies code section 51.014(a)(8
• concluding that City’s amended plea that purported to assert new reason why it believed immunity had not been waived raised no new grounds and was motion to reconsider.
• holding that an appellate court does not have interlocutory jurisdiction over an amended plea to the jurisdiction that was substantively a motion to reconsider the original plea because the amended plea did not assert a new immunity ground
• holding that an appellate court does not have interlocutory jurisdiction over an amended plea to the jurisdiction that was substantively a motion to reconsider the original plea because the amended plea did not assert a new immunity ground

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).