stating that legislative consent was not required for suit for injunctive relief against a state agency to halt unauthorized printing equipment and printing activities
How later courts described this case
- stating that legislative consent was not required for suit for injunctive relief against a state agency to halt unauthorized printing equipment and printing activities
- stating that article XVI, section 21 of Texas Constitution “does not prohibit the State fi-om performing its own printing needs”
- stating that article XVI, section 21 of Texas Constitution "does not prohibit the State from performing its own printing needs"
- refusing interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment based on lack of 21. See, e.g., Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 subject matter jurisdiction as no order granted or S.W.2d 401, 403 (Tex.1997), superseded by denied a plea to the jurisdiction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARWOOD, Justice,
concurring.
I concur because in my opinion when Article XVI, Section 21 was readopted with amendments in 1978, it was not intended to thereby prohibit the State from continuing its known and unchallenged practice, then of many decades duration, of doing much of its own printing.
GREENHILL, C. J., joins in this concurring opinion.