concluding TSU did not waive its right to assert immunity when its answer and plea to the jurisdiction stated the court was without jurisdiction absent a showing of waiver of the doctrine of sovereign immunity
How later courts described this case
- concluding TSU did not waive its right to assert immunity when its answer and plea to the jurisdiction stated the court was without jurisdiction absent a showing of waiver of the doctrine of sovereign immunity
- interpreting Federal Sign for limited proposition that merely executing contract does not waive immunity from suit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
On Motion for rehearing, Texas Southern University (TSU) argues for the first time that we should treat appellee’s contract and quasi-contract claims differently, because Tex. Const, art. Ill, § 44 precludes quasi-eontractual claims against the State. That is the opposite of what TSU argued to us in its brief, where it stated:
Because quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and detrimental reliance are remedies that imply a contract where none has in fact been created under law based on the parties’ conduct, for purposes of sovereign immunity analysis they are treated the same as a contract claim. ... Thus, although this section is stated in terms of a legal contract, it is intended to address all six (6) of Araserve’s contract and quasi-contract claims....
TSU’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.