The Supreme Court heard argument in Family Dollar Stores of Texas v. JLMH Investments (No. 240543) about whether a trial court’s later “clarifying” order altered the finality of an earlier summary-judgment ruling and whether the appeal before the court is properly from a final judgment or is interlocutory. Counsel described two summary-judgment orders entered in quick succession; the second contained language indicating finality and the parties subsequently filed notices of appeal.

At argument justices asked whether the trial court could clarify or revisit the summary-judgment order and what effect a later order granting permission to appeal and staying proceedings would have on finality. Counsel for one party (identified at argument as Mister Wert) argued the later order did not change the operative finality language in the earlier summary judgment and that the appeal was properly before the court. Opposing counsel emphasized the unusual procedural posture and asked the court to confirm whether the record supported appellate jurisdiction.

Oral argument also ranged into separate doctrinal issues presented in the record — including disputes over whether certain claims sounded in nuisance, whether damages remedies had been waived or were time-barred, and how equitable remedies such as injunctions relate to statutory limitations. Counsel and justices discussed decisions touching on the relation between limitations for damages and injunctive relief, and whether a two‑year limitations period for damages affects a landowner’s right to seek equitable abatement of a continuing nuisance.

The court took argument without announcing a decision from the bench.