On October 11, 2021, Devin McDonald, a Dallas County courtesy-patrol officer whose job was to scan freeways for hazards, was in bumper-to-bumper evening rush-hour traffic in the far-right lane of North Central Expressway when, he says, a vehicle several lanes to his left caught his eye, stopped with dark brake lights and a widening gap ahead of it; he says he activated his emergency lights and began to move toward it and, as he turned, struck the car driven by Keith Leonard.¹ His handwritten account at the scene said he looked at a vehicle that had stopped in the far-left lane and, looking back, hit the brakes too late, and the investigating deputy's crash report left the "Pol., Fire, EMS on Emergency" box unchecked.² The County says those accounts are consistent with McDonald's later deposition and describe how the collision happened, not whether there was an emergency.³ Leonard says his car had stopped for traffic, that neither of McDonald's written statements mentions a stalled vehicle, an emergency or anyone in need, and that the deputy who wrote the crash report was a County employee who recorded that McDonald looked left and then struck him.⁴

Leonard sued Dallas County on June 29, 2023 for negligence, the County filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting the emergency exception, and the trial court granted it and dismissed the claims with prejudice.¹ The Dallas Court of Appeals, in an August 22, 2025 opinion (736 S.W.3d 547), reversed, agreeing that a stalled vehicle in live lanes is an emergency but holding that Leonard raised a fact issue whether McDonald was reacting to one, over a dissent by Justice Goldstein.² The Supreme Court granted review on May 1, 2026.

Petition for review from the Dallas Court of Appeals; granted May 1, 2026. Oral argument: January 11, 2027.

• Dallas County:¹ whether Leonard, who bore the burden to overcome immunity, produced any affirmative evidence that McDonald was not reacting to an emergency, since the evidence he offered does not negate the emergency even if taken as true, so that the court of appeals erred in overturning the trial court.
• Leonard:² whether the contemporaneous statements, McDonald's testimony and the County's own crash report affirmatively negate an emergency or at least raise a genuine fact issue that must go to a fact-finder.

A plea to the jurisdiction mirrors summary judgment, so the nonmovant must produce more than a scintilla of evidence, and the County says evidence equally consistent with an emergency and no emergency supports no inference.¹ Leonard says the standard credits his evidence and indulges reasonable inferences in his favor.²

Who bears the burden and how broadly the exception reads.

Dallas County (Petitioner): Immunity is the default and, once the County pleaded the emergency exception with facts, Leonard had to negate it with affirmative evidence, and the exception is read broadly so that employees are encouraged to act in the moment rather than second-guessed in a later suit.¹ In reply, the County says the burden was Leonard's and that the exception's policy favors the County.²

Keith Leonard (Respondent): The exception applies only to an actual emergency, not one that could eventually become one, and the County's proposed rule would make it unfalsifiable by letting an employee's post-suit testimony that he perceived an emergency defeat the waiver even if every contemporaneous record says otherwise.³

Whether Leonard's evidence negates the emergency.

Dallas County (Petitioner): Leonard's three pieces of evidence do not rise above a scintilla: McDonald's later detail does not contradict his brief scene statement, an unchecked box on someone else's form says nothing about whether an emergency existed, and whether his lights were on goes to how he responded, not whether there was an emergency.⁴ In reply, it adds that the objective circumstances establish the emergency and Leonard leaves them unchallenged.⁵

Keith Leonard (Respondent): The evidence is more than three items, including McDonald's handwritten statement and affidavit, the County's own crash report, discovery responses and his testimony, and it shows only a vehicle that stopped in stop-and-go traffic and then moved on, with no evidence it was stalled.⁶ The County's cases involved conceded emergencies and disputes over the quality of the response, and the lights dispute and the checked or unchecked emergency box are probative of whether an emergency response was under way.⁷

Whether McDonald was performing a routine function.

Keith Leonard (Respondent): Looking at traffic that slowed and stopped in stop-and-go traffic was a routine function of McDonald's job, and whether there was an urgent need for assistance is at least debatable and must be resolved by a fact-finder.⁸

Dallas County argued that the court of appeals dramatically narrowed the emergency exception by letting minor descriptions in a post-accident report waive immunity, which will make emergency responders hesitate to respond for fear of liability.¹

The docket shows one amicus curiae brief received July 15, 2026, which is not summarized here.