IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
════════════
No. 05-0022
════════════
v.
Christopher Shawn Sempe and Carl Raymond Sempe,
Sole Heirs of Charles Ray Sempe, Respondents
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Argued November 15, 2006
PER CURIAM
This Court’s jurisdiction to
consider an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction
is limited by statute to cases in which the justices of the court of appeals
“disagree on a question of law material to the decision” or in which the court
of appeals’ opinion conflicts with a prior decision of this Court or of another
Texas court of appeals. Tex. Gov’t Code §§
22.001(a)(1)–(2), 22.225(c). In this case, no
dissenting opinion was filed in the court of appeals, 151 S.W.3d 291 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2004), and after reviewing the parties’ briefs and the relevant
authorities, we do not find that a conflict exists with another state court
opinion. Dallas County argues that the court of appeals’ decision conflicts
with Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584
(1978), and Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 703 (1973), and
though the Legislature’s narrow grant of jurisdiction does not extend to
reviewing interlocutory appeals that may conflict with decisions of the United
States Supreme Court, Dallas County argues that we may consider Robertson
and Moor in determining our conflicts jurisdiction, citing Eichelberger v. Eichelberger,
582 S.W.2d 392, 397 (Tex. 1979) (holding that, in an appeal from a final
judgment, this Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the court of
appeals that conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court).
Even if
OPINION DELIVERED: March 28, 2008