Case law

City of Dallas v. Albert

54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1609 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2011

Second, there is no need to alter established principles in this area of the law when applying established principles addresses the issue. … We did not address the question of whether the city could waive its own immunity from suit because even if it could, the language in question did not clearly and unambiguously do so. Id.

Cantey Hanger, Llp v. Philip Gregory Byrd, Lucy Leasing Co., L.L.C., and Pgb Air, Inc.

467 S.W.3d 477 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2015

We hold that the firm established its affirmative defense of attorney immunity as a matter of law and therefore reverse the court of appeals’ judgment. I. … The court held that, although attorneys enjoy qualified immunity from civil liability to non-clients for actions taken in connection with representing a client in litigation, Cantey Hanger was not entitled to such immunity

The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich

52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 689 · Texas Supreme Court · May 1, 2009

sovereign immunity], declaratory-judgment suits against state officials seeking to establish a contract’s validity, to enforce performance under a contract, or to impose contractual liabilities are suits against the State … See Fen-ell, 248 S.W.3d at 160 (Brister, J., concurring) ("A different case *371 might be presented if the plaintiffs alleged the board was clearly violating some provision of the statute.

Gtech Corporation v. James Steele

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2020

As one commentator has observed, the protection the Supreme Court has extended to government contractors might qualify as a form of “derivative immunity,” but it is not “derivative sovereign immunity,” and certainly not … In the absence of sovereign immunity from suit, the trial courts had jurisdiction State, in doing this work is clearly not liable herein.”) (emphases added); Tillotson v.

HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice

52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 555 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2009

In this case, we consider the extent to which a general contractor must “provide” workers’ compensation insurance under the Act to qualify for statutory employer status and the resulting immunity from the work-related claims … The OCIP in this case, established and paid for by FMR pursuant to its contract with HCBeek, qualifies under the Act as “providing” workers’ compensation insurance to subcontractors in a manner that is consistent with section

Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Harris County Toll Road Authority

52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 579 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2009

Other statutes clearly speak to the subject. … Because section 251.102 does not clearly waive governmental immunity, and because Harris County has not otherwise waived its immunity from suit, SBC’s statutory reimbursement claim is barred.

Bkadlet v. McCrabb

1 Dallam 504 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1843

The order of procedure in suing out writs of mandamus is very clearly prescribed in 3 Black. Com., p. … Section 6, article 4, of the Constitution provides “that the clerks of the district courts shall be elected by the qualified voters for members of Congress in the counties where the courts are established, and shall hold

Travis v. City of Mesquite

35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 756 · Texas Supreme Court · May 20, 1992

be no granting of summary judgment based on the applicability of the doctrine of qualified immunity...." … Furthermore, the elements of official immunity and qualified immunity appear for all practical purposes to be the same.

Laura Beeman and Janet Lock v. Brad Livingston, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

468 S.W.3d 534 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2015

—Austin Dec. 28, 2012, order) (per curiam). 2 a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the Code does not clearly and unambiguously waive immunity. … TDCJ inmates) qualifies as the “public”—the community as a whole.

Newman v. Obersteller Ex Rel. Obersteller

40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 497 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1997

This Court has consistently noted that Section 51.014(5) is based on qualified immunity. In Travis v. … Subchapter B establishes "tort liability of governmental units" by waiving sovereign immunity in specific circumstances. Id. §§ 101.021-.028.

Rose v. Governor

24 Tex. 496 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

The point is, that these appellants are not qualified to maintain this suit against the Governor of the State of Texas, because they never had capacity to maintain a suit against the President of the Republic of Texas. … with strictness, so as to extend the right only to those by whom it was clearly intended that it should be enjoyed.

LTTS Charter School, Inc. v. C2 Construction, Inc.

54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1176 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2011

In this case, Universal Academy is run by a non-profit corporation organized under Texas law and qualifying under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. … And if immunity is never waived, then Section 12.1056 would suggest that open-enrollment charter schools are immune from all tort liability, unique among all governmental entities in the State.

U OF TEX SOUTHWESTERN MED. CEN. v. Margulis

11 S.W.3d 186 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

The motion for summary judgment argued that as a matter of law the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts that would indicate a violation of clearly established law. … The motion then argued extensively that as a matter of law Fain and Winchester were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

University of Texas at Arlington v. Sandra Williams and Steve Williams

58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 514 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2015

of retention of immunity.” … at issue here are not “clearly within [the statute’s] purview.”

Anne Ballantyne, Mary McComb, Jon Sandige, Richard Schimpff, and Susie Willerson v. Champion Builders, Inc., and Primero Projects, L.L.C.

Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

Supreme Court has also established an objective reasonableness test for determining whether a public official acted in good faith as a condition to the protection of federal qualified immunity. [3] The Supreme Court stated … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Zachry Construction Corporation v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas

57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1378 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2014

But Section 271.152, as qualified by this “subject to” phrase also does not preclude other defenses or other contractual procedures, or confer immunity or suggest joint enterprise. … Direct damages for breach — “the necessary and usual result of the defendant’s wrongful act” 62 — certainly qualify.

State v. Paul Reed Harper

562 S.W.3d 1 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2018

[it] would have clearly stated so.” That argument states precisely the opposite of the presumption that we apply when determining whether the legislature has waived sovereign immunity. … Rather, Reata establishes that sovereign immunity never protects the state from certain qualifying counterclaims when the state does assert certain claims for monetary recovery. But it does not establish the inverse.

Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Emmett

58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 567 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2015

to governmental immunity. … The undisputed facts establish that Marcotte acted with authority of law and that the ultra vires exception is inapplicable as to him.

Tooke v. City of Mexia

49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 819 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2006

Thus, even if the City were not immune from suit for breach of a contract whose subject lies within its proprietary functions, the Tookes’ contract does not qualify- Third, the Tookes argue that the City waived immunity from … (holding the Legislature "clearly and unambiguously waived immunity for community college districts” through the use of the language "sue and be sued”); City of Houston v.

In RE DAVID ROGERS, JENNIFER PAKENHAM, AND KRISTI POWELL v. the State of Texas

Texas Supreme Court · May 24, 2024

Once a tax rate is established, an election is required to change or abolish it. Id. The board may call for such an election by adopting a resolution. Id. § 775.0752(b). … (“A county’s immunity is derived from the state’s sovereign immunity because it is a unit of state government, but its immunity is referred to as ‘governmental immunity.’”).