In In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. 2006) the relators-defendants moved to compel arbitration under both the TAA and the FAA, which requests the trial court denied. 196 S.W.3d at 778.

The contracts involved interstate commerce, thus triggering the FAA, and referenced neither the TAA nor the FAA. Id. at 778-79.

The supreme court held that "the mere fact that a contract affects interstate commerce, thus triggering the FAA, does not preclude enforcement under the TAA as well," as long as the FAA does not preempt the TAA. Id. at 780.

Because the FAA did not preempt the TAA in that case, the supreme court held that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over both an interlocutory appeal taken under the TAA's provisions and a mandamus proceeding. Id.

The supreme court then proceeded to consider the matter in the original proceeding, dismissing the related interlocutory appeal as moot after having granted full relief in the former proceeding. Id. at 783-84.