Here’s an analysis of Rush Truck Centers v. Sayre, based on the Supreme Court of Texas opinion dated June 6, 2025. You can read the full opinion by clicking here.
Case Overview
This is a products-liability wrongful death case arising from the tragic death of six-year-old Emory Sayre, who was killed by her school bus in Parker County, Texas. Her parents, Sean and Tori Sayre, sued Rush Truck Centers of Texas and Blue Bird Body Company in Dallas County. The core legal issue before the Texas Supreme Court was not about liability, but about appellate jurisdiction—specifically, whether the court of appeals had the authority to hear an interlocutory appeal over the venue determination.
Key Legal Question
Does Texas law allow for an interlocutory appeal (an appeal taken before the final resolution of the case) of a trial court’s venue determination in every multi-plaintiff case, or only when the trial court must decide whether each plaintiff independently established venue?
Arguments
-
Petitioners (Rush Truck & Blue Bird):
- Argued that interlocutory appeals should be allowed in all multi-plaintiff cases, citing the majority view among Texas appellate courts.
- Pointed to administrative actions in Dallas County as insufficient for venue and sought to move the case to Parker or Comal County.
-
Respondents (The Sayres):
- Contended that interlocutory appeals are only allowed when the trial court actually decides whether each plaintiff independently established venue.
- Noted that both plaintiffs asserted identical claims, based on identical facts, with identical venue grounds—so there was no separate venue determination for each plaintiff.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 15.064(a) generally prohibits interlocutory appeals of venue determinations.
- Section 15.003(b) creates a narrow exception: interlocutory appeals are allowed only when the trial court determines whether a plaintiff independently establishes venue, typically to prevent “tag-along” plaintiffs from joining a case in a county where they otherwise don’t have venue.
- Here, both Sayre parents’ claims were identical, so the trial court didn’t need to determine venue for each plaintiff separately.
- Allowing interlocutory appeals in all multi-plaintiff cases would “gut” the general rule and create a jurisdictional loophole, contrary to legislative intent.
Holding
The Supreme Court of Texas held that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because Section 15.003(b)’s exception did not apply. The presence of multiple plaintiffs, with identical claims and venue facts, is not enough to trigger appellate jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal on venue.
The judgment of the court of appeals was vacated, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Implications
- This decision closes a significant loophole that allowed for piecemeal appeals in multi-plaintiff cases where there was no genuine dispute about independent venue grounds.
- Reinforces the principle that interlocutory appeals are exceptions, not the rule, and should be narrowly construed.
- Provides clarity—and likely finality—on when appellate courts can review interlocutory venue decisions in Texas.
Bottom Line
Unless there are separate venue issues for each plaintiff, interlocutory appeals of venue determinations are not permitted in Texas. This keeps most venue disputes from clogging appellate dockets before a case is resolved on the merits.
Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.