Six-year-old Emory Sayre was killed in April 2022 in Parker County when her school bus ran over her as she exited and crossed in front of it. The bus was made by Blue Bird Body Company in Georgia and sold to Brock ISD by Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P., an authorized dealer whose principal office is in Comal County and which maintained a Dallas County facility, where the Sayres say the sale was negotiated, billed, registered, inspected, and titled.¹

Emory's parents, Sean and Tori Sayre, sued Rush Truck and Blue Bird in Dallas County for strict liability, negligence and gross negligence, and Blue Bird and Rush Truck moved to transfer venue to Parker or Comal County, arguing the Dallas County activities were clerical. The trial court denied the motion and the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding a substantial part of the events occurred in Dallas County (704 S.W.3d 857). After merits briefing, the Court requested briefing on the court of appeals' jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal and heard argument March 19, 2025.¹

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals in an interlocutory venue appeal; argued March 19, 2025.²

Whether § 15.003(b) authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a venue ruling in every case with multiple plaintiffs or only where the trial court determines whether a plaintiff independently established venue.¹

Jurisdiction, including appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, is decided first, and statutes permitting interlocutory appeals are strictly construed as narrow exceptions.¹

Rush Truck and Blue Bird (Petitioners): eleven courts of appeals hold interlocutory appeals are always available in multi-plaintiff venue rulings, and the specific provision controls over the general bar.

Sayres (Respondents): § 15.003(b) applies only when the trial court necessarily decides whether each plaintiff independently established venue, and their identical claims and venue grounds do not.¹

Not applicable to the Court's decision; the opinion does not recite the petition's cert-worthiness arguments.

• Any multi-plaintiff case. Asked whether section 15.003(b) applies whenever there is more than one plaintiff, petitioners' counsel said correct, though a Justice noted that would swallow section 15.064's bar on interlocutory appeals. (Oral Argument, 0:03:58)
• Specific over general. Asked whether the two statutes can be harmonized, petitioners' counsel said the general rule waits for the case's end, and the Legislature made a specific exception for multi-plaintiff rulings. (Oral Argument, 0:09:25; 0:11:34)
• Independently establishing venue. Asked about the phrase independently establishing venue, petitioners' counsel said whether plaintiffs allege the same venue facts does not matter, because the Legislature did not say so. (Oral Argument, 0:07:53)
• Two parents. Asked why it matters that two parents sued, respondents' counsel said they have different damages but are indistinguishable as to the cause of the accident. (Oral Argument, 0:19:59)
• Dallas venue facts. Asked to walk through the venue facts, respondents' counsel said Rush Truck, as Rush Bus Center in Dallas, took the order, delivered, and equipped the bus there. (Oral Argument, 0:27:37)

None noted

Holding

Section 15.003(b) does not apply where a trial court never needed to determine whether each plaintiff independently established venue, so the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.¹

Reasoning

Section 15.064(a) says "[n]o interlocutory appeal shall lie" from venue determinations, and § 15.003(b) allows appeal of "a trial court's determination under Subsection (a)," whether a plaintiff did or did not independently establish proper venue; that cross-reference limits the exception to rulings retaining or transferring a particular plaintiff. The specific-over-general canon does not apply because the provisions can be reconciled, and the 2003 amendment responding to American Home Products v. Clark aimed at "tag-along" venue, a concern absent where two parents assert identical wrongful-death and survival claims on identical venue facts. The Court agreed with the Fourth Court of Appeals' reading in Basic Energy and rejected the majority view of the other courts of appeals.²

Disposition

Court of appeals' judgment vacated and case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.³

Vote Breakdown

Opinion of the Court by Justice Sullivan.⁴