holding that A sue and be sued @ at least arguably shows intent to waive immunity from suits against counties
How later courts described this case
- holding that A sue and be sued @ at least arguably shows intent to waive immunity from suits against counties
- holding that the pre-suit presentment and refusal requirements in former section 89.004(a) of the Texas Local Government Code did not waive immunity but established a condition precedent to suit
- rejecting waiver-by-conduct exception to sovereign immunity where county invoked contract’s liquidated damages provision
- explaining that express legislative consent is required to show that immunity from a breach of contract suit has been waived
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Tooke v. City of Mexia
77 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex. 2002), superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325
The opinion
Justice ENOCH
dissenting.
I again disagree with the Court’s continued support of its sovereign immunity jurisprudence. 1 Significantly here, Pelzel built the building and the County has occupied the building, but it refuses to pay the full price. The County insists, instead, on asserting its alleged rights under the contract to withhold full payment. Of course, we’ll never know if the County has such rights under the contract because the Court allows the County to interpose its sovereign immunity from suit. The Court, as it has done recently in so many other cases, locks the courthouse doors. 2 I add another case to ... The List. 3
*253 Today, the Court keeps the courthouse doors locked. Worse, the Court permits the County to enforce those provisions of the contract it chooses, and to which Pelzel is bound, but leaves the County unbound by any provisions Pelzel seeks to enforce. Because I would hold that the County has waived its immunity by entering into the contract, I would not reach the presentment issue. Once again, I respectfully dissent.
. See, e.g., Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 417-18 (Tex.1997) (Enoch, L, dissenting).
. TNRCC v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 863 (Tex.2002) (Enoch, J., dissenting).
. See IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 863 ; Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex.2001); Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 220 (Tex.2001); Federal Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 408 ; Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Int’l Capital Corp., 40 S.W.3d 687 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, no pet.); Denver City Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Moses, 51 S.W.3d 386 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2001, no pet.); Gendreau v. Medical Arts Hosp., 54 S.W.3d 877 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, pet. filed); City of Houston v. Northwood Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1, 73 S.W.3d 304 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Tex. Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Rivera, No. 13-01-00446-CV, 2001 Tex.App. LEXIS 7681 (Corpus Christi Nov. 15, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Landry’s Crab Shack v. Bd. of Regents, No. 03-00-00690-CV, 2001 WL 1240832 (Austin Oct. 18, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Ondemir v. Bexar County Clerk, No. 04-00-00497-CV, 2001 WL 1136074 (San Antonio Sept. 26, 2001, pet. denied) (not designated for publication); O’Dell v. Perry, No. 03-00-00603-CV, 2001 WL 726387 (Austin June 29, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication); State DOT v. Ramirez, 72 S.W.3d 376 (Austin 2001, pet. filed) (not designated for publication); Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. AFEX Corp., No. 03-00-00222-CV, 2001 Tex.App. LEXIS 1266 (Austin Mar. 1, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication).