# Katherine R. Warren as Next Friend of M. H. W., a Minor Beneficiary of the M.H.W. 2000 Trust v. Andy I. Weiner, Trustee of the M.H.W. 2000 Trust

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · August 4, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3069770

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** August 4, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3069770

## Opinion text

Opinion issued August 4, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00432-CV
———————————
KATHERINE R. WARREN, AS NEXT FRIEND OF M.H.W., A MINOR
BENEFICIARY OF THE M.H.W. 2000 TRUST, Appellant
V.
ANDY I. WEINER, TRUSTEE OF THE M.H.W. 2000 TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 425,578

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Katherine R. Warren as next friend of M.H.W., has filed a

petition for permissive appeal seeking to challenge an interlocutory order denying

appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §

51.014(d) (West 2015); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. To be entitled to a permissive appeal
from an interlocutory order that would not otherwise be appealable, the requesting

party must establish that (1) the order to be appealed involves a “controlling

question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”

and (2) an immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d); see

TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e)(4); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. The petition fails to establish that

the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial

ground for a difference of opinion. In addition, the parties have raised these issues

in connection with petitions for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the

petition for permissive appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3069770. Public record. Not legal advice.