Case law

Lorenzo Franks v. the Honorable C. Bud Kirkendall, Judge of the 2nd 25th Judicial Court of Guadalupe County, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 14, 2013

It is well established that litigants cannot be denied access to the courts simply because they are inmates. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984); In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d at 165. … The trial court’s judgment clearly reflects that it was based on the court’s review of the pleadings on file rather than on any evidence or argument presented at the hearing.

State of Texas v. Barbara Oakley, as Guardian of the Estate and Person of Richard Danziger, a Disabled Adult

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 16, 2005

We think this misapplies and misunderstands the purpose of the supreme court's language requiring a statute to waive sovereign immunity clearly and unambiguously. … In chapter 103, the legislature clearly expressed its intent to waive immunity when a person has been wrongfully convicted.

Robertson County, Texas v. Cynthia Wymola

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 13, 2000

Because an award of pre-judgment interest attempts to put a plaintiff back into her pre-injury position, we believe pre-judgment interest is properly a component of actual damages for which immunity has clearly been waived … In addition, no mention of immunity from interest was made in the County's motion for new trial. A governmental entity's immunity from suit is a jurisdictional issue that may be raised for the first time on appeal.

Dalrymple v. University of Texas System

949 S.W.2d 395 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 28, 1997

DISCUSSION Official Immunity We first address point of error one in which the Dalrymples contend the administrators were not entitled to official immunity from their claims. … Official immunity is an affirmative defense. Id.

WBD Oil & Gas Co. and WBD Oil & Gas Company, Inc. v. Railroad Commission of Texas Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas Anadarko Petroleum Corporation MidCon Gas Services Corp. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Midgard Energy Company And Conoco Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 4, 1999

Again, the Panhandle Field rules clearly look to the future. … Many of the same reasons why the Panhandle Field rules qualify as "rules" are the same reasons why the proceeding does not qualify as a "contested case."

Sante Rehabilitation, L.P. v. National Heritage Insurance Company Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Albert Hawkins, Commissioner

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 12, 2004

"It is well established that mandamus will not lie where a petitioner has another clear and effective remedy, adequate to obtain the relief to which he may be entitled." Rivera , 124 S.W.3d at 713 . … "An act is ministerial when the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed by the official with sufficient certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion." Id.

Diana Foster v. Texas Retirement System, Trustee for Texas Public Retired School Employees Group Insurance Program Aetna Life Insurance Company And Aetna Health Management, LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 23, 2008

She asserts that the enabling language "encompasses a waiver of immunity," arguing that the legislature empowered TRS to establish benefits plans and develop procedures to administer claims and that "[o]ne procedure for administering … Only if the plaintiff alleges actions that were criminal, fraudulent, grossly negligent, or "otherwise clearly outside the scope of its delegated authority, then the intermediary may not be entitled to the immunity it seeks

State of Texas v. Barbara Oakley, as Guardian of the Estate and Person of Richard Danziger, a Disabled Adult

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 16, 2005

We think this misapplies and misunderstands the purpose of the supreme court’s language requiring a statute to waive sovereign immunity clearly and unambiguously. … In chapter 103, the legislature clearly expressed its intent to waive immunity when a person has been wrongfully convicted.

City of Corpus Christi, Texas v. Commission on State Emergency Communications And Carey Spence, Interim Executive Director, Commission on State Emergency Communications

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 13, 2001

The Commission’s arguments that the City’s claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that the City is circumventing established procedure for review of administrative-agency decisions are also without … The word “amendment” does not unmistakably and clearly implicate a complete withdrawal from a regional plan, nor does any provision of the Commission’s rules.

Walls v. Travis County

958 S.W.2d 944 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 12, 1998

Although the petition attached to the citation clearly named Travis County as the defendant, the answer was filed on behalf of Terry Keel as sheriff. … Travis County then filed an answer that was clearly on behalf of “Travis *946 Comity” as an entity.

Sante Rehabilitation, L.P. v. National Heritage Insurance Company Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Albert Hawkins, Commissioner

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 12, 2004

“It is well established that mandamus will not lie where a petitioner has another clear and effective remedy, adequate to obtain the relief to which he may be entitled.” Rivera, 124 S.W.3d at 713. … “An act is ministerial when the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed by the official with sufficient certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion.” Id.

Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, and Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General v. Zachor Legal Institute

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 15, 2021

Zachor Legal Institute contends that the TPIA does not clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity for Qatar Foundation’s suit, and thus the district court lacks jurisdiction. … When deciding whether a statute clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity, we: (1) consider “whether the statutory provisions, even if not a model of clarity, waive immunity without

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department v. W.M. Callaway, Jr.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 11, 1998

Clearly, one purpose of Callaway's suit is to establish the validity of the rights and obligations granted in the easement. … Since Callaway primarily seeks money damages, his request for declaratory judgment does not fit under the exception to sovereign immunity established in Cobb.

Texas State University v. Sylvia Guillen

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 4, 2024

Does TTCA Section 101.056 preserve TXST’s immunity? … is policy implementation for which the district is not immune.

Henry L. Zumwalt and H.L. Zumwalt Construction, Inc. // the City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through Its San Antonio Water System Board of Trustees v. the City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through Its San Antonio Water System Board of Trustees// Henry L. Zumwalt and H.L. Zumwalt Construction, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 17, 2012

This would be an absurd result that clearly could not have been intended by the legislature. … The parties dispute whether section 361.343 embodies a statutory contribution action or merely sets forth factors to be considered after liability has otherwise been established under the TSWDA.

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 30, 2022

Thus, the key summary-judgment issue is whether those two acts qualify as “rules” as defined by the APA. … Code § 26.420(e)(1)-(2); • to implement a competitively neutral mechanism by which all Texas residents may obtain basic telecommunications services and to determine which providers qualify

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 8, 2016

Specifically, in three issues, the Commission contends that (1) the Act establishes two separate types of Superfund orders found in Sections 361.188 and 361.272 with distinct waivers of immunity found in Sections 361.321 … The EPA conducted a removal action in 1996, although the Site’s ranking was too low to qualify the Site for the federal Superfund program.

City of Corpus Christi, Texas v. Commission on State Emergency Communications And Carey Spence, Interim Executive Director, Commission on State Emergency Communications

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 13, 2001

The Commission's arguments that the City's claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that the City is circumventing established procedure for review of administrative-agency decisions are also without merit … The word "amendment" does not unmistakably and clearly implicate a complete withdrawal from a regional plan, nor does any provision of the Commission's rules.

Texas Disposal System, Inc. v. City of Round Rock, Texas and Laurie Hadley, in Her Official Capacity of City Manager of Round Rock, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 31, 2023

XI, § 5 (authorizing cities having specified populations to adopt and amend charters by majority vote of qualified voters). … —Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (“[UDJA] clearly and unambiguously waives the sovereign immunity of municipalities in any declaratory-judgment action involving the validity of a municipal ordinance.”).

In Re Lincoln

114 S.W.3d 724 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 22, 2003

We find that Lincoln and his attorney, Francis Williams Montelongo, filed a petition in this Court that is clearly groundless within the meaning of Rule 52.11(a). … We believe the record establishes that Lincoln and his counsel have engaged in a pattern of filing baseless motions and petitions. This conduct cannot be ignored.