Texas Supreme Court Confirms Scope of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ Jurisdiction
Client Alert | March 14, 2025
Kelley v. Homminga, No. 25-9013 & Devon Energy Production Co. v. Oliver,
No. 25-9014 – Decided March 14, 2025
The Texas Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction is limited to cases within its exclusive appellate jurisdiction and those transferred to it under the Texas Supreme Court’s power to equalize dockets.
“We conclude S.B. 1045 is susceptible of only one reasonable construction: the Legislature did not intend the Fifteenth Court to hear every civil appeal within its statewide jurisdiction.”
Background:
In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed S.B. 1045, creating the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, a new intermediate appellate court with exclusive, statewide appellate jurisdiction over appeals involving the State and appeals from Texas’s recently created business court. Shortly after the Fifteenth Court began hearing cases in September 2024, a question about the scope of its jurisdiction arose: Does it have general, statewide appellate jurisdiction in addition to its exclusive intermediate appellate jurisdiction?
Two cases presented the issue: Kelley v. Homminga and Devon Energy Production Co. v. Oliver. In both cases, the defendants appealed directly to the Fifteenth Court, even though neither appeal was within the Fifteenth Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. Both sets of defendants argued that the Fifteenth Court could hear their appeals because it had general appellate jurisdiction. Each set of plaintiffs moved to transfer the appeal to the regional court of appeals that would ordinarily hear the case—in Kelley, the First or Fourteenth Court, and in Devon, the Thirteenth Court.
The Fifteenth Court denied both transfer motions over dissents by Chief Justice Brister. The majority held that because the Government Code grants the Fifteenth Court general appellate jurisdiction over civil cases statewide, the Fifteenth Court could hear the cases. But in Chief Justice Brister’s view, this would increase the number of appeals in the Fifteenth Court and divert judicial resources to cases outside the court’s exclusive jurisdiction. He further expressed concern that construing the court’s jurisdiction so broadly would incentivize forum-shopping and lead to gamesmanship. The First Court agreed with the Fifteenth Court majority, while the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Courts disagreed. In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27a, the Fifteenth Court promptly notified the Texas Supreme Court of the courts’ disagreement so that it could resolve the dispute.
Issue:
Does the Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction extend beyond (1) the cases over which it has exclusive intermediate appellate jurisdiction and (2) cases transferred to it by the Supreme Court for docket equalization purposes?
Court’s Holding:
No. S.B. 1045’s text and structure indicate that the Fifteenth Court’s jurisdiction is limited to cases that are (1) within its exclusive jurisdiction or (2) transferred to it by the Supreme Court for docket equalization purposes.
What It Means:
- In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Fifteenth Court’s jurisdiction extends only to those cases involving the State or from the business court.
- The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the Fifteenth Court will remain focused on quickly and efficiently resolving the categories of cases the Legislature placed within its exclusive jurisdiction. Indeed, instead of being “[b]urdened with thousands of civil cases of every stripe,” today’s decision ensures that the Fifteenth Court will be able “to give special attention to those cases the Legislature has defined as critical to the State’s interests.” Op. at 10.
- The prompt decisions by the Fifteenth Court, regional courts of appeals, and Supreme Court underscore their commitment to providing timely and predictable answers to disputes that arise as the Fifteenth Court of Appeals proceeds with its work.
- Any appeals filed in the Fifteenth Court that fall outside its exclusive jurisdiction are subject to transfer.
The Court’s order and opinion for Kelley v. Homminga, No. 25-9013, are available here.
The Court’s order and opinion for Devon Energy Production Co. v. Oliver, No. 25-9014, are available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Texas Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com |
| Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Texas General Litigation
| Trey Cox +1 214.698.3256 tcox@gibsondunn.com |
Collin Cox +1 346.718.6604 ccox@gibsondunn.com |
Gregg Costa +1 346.718.6649 gcosta@gibsondunn.com |
| John Adams +1 214.698.3335 jsadams@gibsondunn.com |
David Woodcock +1 214.698.3211 dwoodcock@gibsondunn.com |
This alert was prepared by Texas of counsels Ben Wilson and Kathryn Cherry and associates Elizabeth Kiernan, Stephen Hammer, and Jaime Barrios.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.