The City of Arlington v. Airport Properties, Inc.
This text of The City of Arlington v. Airport Properties, Inc. (The City of Arlington v. Airport Properties, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00024-CV ___________________________
THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, Appellant
V.
AIRPORT PROPERTIES, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 96th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 096-372841-25
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION
Airport Properties, Inc. sued the City of Arlington, and the City—asserting
governmental immunity—filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court denied the
City’s plea to the jurisdiction, and the City filed this interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8).
However, shortly after the City filed its notice of appeal, Airport Properties
moved to nonsuit all of its claims against the City. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 162. The trial
court granted Airport Properties’s motion and dismissed the claims without
prejudice.1 See id. Because no claims remain pending in the trial court, Airport
Properties moved to dismiss this appeal as moot.2
A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case or take a nonsuit at any time before
all the plaintiff’s evidence other than rebuttal evidence has been introduced. Id. A
plaintiff has an absolute right to take a nonsuit. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d
860, 862 (Tex. 2010). A plaintiff’s nonsuit typically moots the entire case or
controversy. See, e.g., Morath v. Lewis, 601 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Tex. 2020); Klein v.
Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. 2010); Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Est. of
Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2006).
The order memorializes that it “dispose[d] of all claims and parties in this 1
case.”
Airport Properties’s certificate of conference reflects that the City is 2
unopposed to the motion.
2 Exceptions exist, however, such as when a defendant has asserted an
independent claim for affirmative relief. Klein, 315 S.W.3d at 3 (citing Gen. Land Off. of
Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1990)); see, e.g., Villafani v. Trejo,
251 S.W.3d 466, 468–71 (Tex. 2008) (explaining that plaintiff’s nonsuit did not render
moot trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for dismissal with prejudice and
attorney’s fees under statute); Felderhoff v. Knauf, 819 S.W.2d 110, 110–11 (Tex. 1991)
(holding that plaintiff’s nonsuit did not preclude plaintiff from challenging trial court’s
order granting defendants’ monetary-sanctions motion against him). But neither
Airport Properties nor the City has responded that such a claim exists here, and the
record reflects none.3
We are prohibited from deciding moot controversies because the Texas
Constitution’s separation-of-powers provision prohibits advisory opinions. See Tex.
Const. art. II, § 1; Klein, 315 S.W.3d at 3; see also Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d
158, 164 (Tex. 2004) (“A judicial decision reached without a case or controversy is an
advisory opinion, which is barred by the separation[-]of[-]powers provision of the
Texas Constitution.”). Here, there is no controversy for us to decide because Airport
Properties’s nonsuit ended the entire case. When a case becomes moot, the parties
lose standing to maintain their claims. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex.
3 The trial court’s nonsuit order recites that “[the City] has asserted no counterclaims or claims for affirmative relief that remain pending, and no claims remain pending between [Airport Properties] and [the City] in this cause.”
3 2001); see In re Est. of Garza, No. 13-14-00730-CV, 2015 WL 3799370, at *3 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that when a plaintiff
nonsuits his claims, “there is no longer a case or controversy, and the court of appeals
has no jurisdiction over the suit”). Accordingly, we grant Airport Properties’s motion
and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker Justice
Delivered: March 19, 2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
The City of Arlington v. Airport Properties, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-city-of-arlington-v-airport-properties-inc-txctapp2-2026.