# Texas a & M University-Kingsville v. Lawson

> Texas Supreme Court · June 20, 2002 · 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 857

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517201

## Case

- **Full name:** TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY-KINGSVILLE, Et Al. Petitioners, v. Grant M. LAWSON, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 20, 2002
- **Citations:** 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 857; 87 S.W.3d 518; 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1330; 2002 Tex. LEXIS 90; 2001 WL 1892195
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Enoch
- **Judges:** Hecht, Phillips, Owen, Jefferson, Enoch, Rodriguez, Baker, Hankinson, O'Neill
- **Cited by:** 152 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/9517201

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding where the state has waived sovereign immunity, and then enters an agreement settling the claims subject to that waiver, the state cannot assert sovereign immunity as a basis to avoid enforcement of the settlement
- holding that when a governmental entity is exposed to suit because of a waiver of immunity, it cannot settle that suit and subsequently deny waiver of immunity for enforcement thereof
- holding “when a governmental entity is exposed to suit because of waiver of immunity, it cannot nullify that waiver by settling the claim with an agreement on which it cannot be sued” (emphasis added)
- reaffirming that "waiver of governmental immunity is a matter addressed to the Legislature”
- discussing reasons the Legislature generally decides whether to waive immunity for contract claims and noting that allowing suit against government for breach of agreement settling a claim for which immunity has been waived does not interfere with the Legislature’s policy choices

## Opinion text

Justice ENOCH
filed a concurring opinion.
I join the Court’s judgment, but only because I maintain that the Legislature, by authorizing state agencies to enter into contracts, has expressly waived sovereign immunity. 1 The University executed the settlement agreement; thus it may not interpose sovereign immunity as a defense to suit on the agreement.
The Court struggles to tie the waiver of sovereign immunity underlying the Whis-tleblower Act cause of action, which was settled, to the current litigation over the settlement agreement. The dissent responds that the Court sidesteps our traditional rule that the enforcement of a settlement agreement is a separate breach-of-contract action. 2 This is an unnecessary argument that arises solely because the Court refuses to recognize, though virtually all other state jurisdictions have, that by *524 entering into a contract, the state waives sovereign immunity. 3
I concur in the Court’s judgment.
. See Federal Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 416 (Tex.1997) (Enoch, J., dissenting); see also Travis County v. Pelzel & Assoc. Inc., 77 S.W.3d 246, 252 (Tex.2002) (Enoch, J., dissenting); Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 863 (Tex.2002) (Enoch, J., dissenting); Gen. Serv. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co. Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591, 602 (Tex.2001) (Enoch, J., dissenting); Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 220, 221 (Tex.2001) (Enoch, J., dissenting).
. See Tex. A & M Univ.-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518, 524 (Tex.2002) (Rodriguez, J., dissenting); see also Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658-59 (Tex.1996).
. See Federal Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 419 (Enoch, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517201. Public record. Not legal advice.