Justice Busby wrote for the majority in Bonsmara Natural Beef Co. v. Hart of Texas Cattle Feeder: “[A] person ‘may appeal from’ certain types of interlocutory orders, including an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. Does this language mean that if the losing party chooses not to take an interlocutory appeal from such an order, it forfeits the ability to challenge that order on appeal from a final judgment? According to the [plaintiff] cattle owner, the mere availability of an interlocutory appeal demonstrates that the losing party must appeal the order within twenty days of its issuance. Because the [defendant] cattle feeder failed to appeal the order denying its motion to compel arbitration within that period, the owner contends the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to overturn the trial court’s denial postjudgment. This argument is incorrect: our rule has long been that ‘a party against whom an interlocutory [order] has been rendered will have his right of appeal when . . . the same is merged in a final judgment disposing of the whole case.'” He was joined by Justices Guzman, Lehrmann, Boyd, Blacklock, and Bland.
Justice Green dissented in no uncertain terms: “[B]y applying a myopically permissive interpretation of the interlocutory appeal statute, the Court concludes—in defiance of all common sense—that an interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration is not required, and a challenge to such an order can wait until after a trial on the merits.” He was joined by Chief Justice Hecht and Justice Devine.
