Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,255 results
0.53s
Mary Louise Serafine v. Alexander Blunt and Ashley Blunt
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 1, 2015
from, or not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act”) (emphasis added); see also Mass. … The Legislature when crafting the clause two definition clearly and unambiguously resorted to an easily understandable concept of what constitutes a public issue.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 19, 2008
Expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified, and (2) the testimony is relevant and based on a reliable foundation. Wilkins , 47 S.W.3d at 499 ; Robinson , 923 S.W.2d at 556 . … The first difference was that the first sentence of section 9(a) omitted a qualifier found in the statute, "Except as provided in sections 12 and 13 of this Act . . . ." Former art. 9033, § 9(a).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 13, 2001
Flores qualifies each of the admissions enumerated above and minimizes his own culpability. … For example, in this case Flores was offered use immunity at appellant's trial. 10.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUniversity of Texas at Austin// S. O. v. S. O.// University of Texas at Austin/.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 4, 2020
a disciplinary proceeding, those claims sought to control state action and were barred by sovereign immunity. … It makes it perhaps even more difficult and provides certainly justification for a lot of work and a lot of time that was clearly provided in representation, and [S.O.] in what clearly was a very, very, very
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Health and Human Services Commission v. Julius Kadia
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 28, 2024
, which deprives courts of subject-matter jurisdiction for suits against such entities unless immunity has been waived. … The plaintiff can do so, as relevant, “by showing either that he was clearly better qualified than the employee who was selected or that the employer’s proffered explanation for its decision was false or unworthy of credence
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 13, 2001
These admissions clearly expose Flores to some criminal liability. … Flores qualifies each of the admissions enumerated above and minimizes his own culpability.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCircle C Child Development Center, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District
981 S.W.2d 483 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 30, 1998
The sole issue before this Court is whether a “child development center” qualifies as a school for purposes of obtaining tax-exempt status pursuant to section 11.21 of the Texas Tax Code. … If there is no evidence supporting the finding, then we will examine the entire record to determine if the contrary proposition has been established as a matter of law. See id.
Cited 43 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 28, 2008
Wadley, 285 S.W. 1084 (Tex. 1926), “to the extent it characterized the plaintiff’s failure to establish a statutory prerequisite as jurisdictional.”); Mingus, 285 S.W. at 1088 (holding that venue requirements governing … Section 21.306’s prohibition against ex parte communications with the Commissioner is clearly addressed to that context. 13 legislature saw fit to grant the Commissioner
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 17, 2001
Appellant states in his brief that he was stopped and immediately arrested for failing to establish financial responsibility. … These definitions clearly include appellant and his pickup truck. Point of error five is overruled. Point of error six restates the Speedy Trial Act argument asserted in point two.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 20, 2009
Similarly, section 143.044(c) provides that a municipality may authorize educational incentive pay “[i]f the criteria for educational incentive pay are clearly established, are in writing, 3 Our analysis … This requirement is clearly established, is in writing, and is applied equally to each fire fighter, as required by the statute. See id.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 20, 2009
Similarly, section 143.044(c) provides that a municipality may authorize educational incentive pay "[i]f the criteria for educational incentive pay are clearly established, are in writing, and are applied equally" to each … This requirement is clearly established, is in writing, and is applied equally to each fire fighter, as required by the statute. See id.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 10, 2015
Sovereign immunity is “an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations,” Beers v. … App’x 757, 760 (11th Cir. 2014) (rejecting the argument that a suit for “any type of monetary award” is a suit for “damages” entitling a state official to qualified immunity: “The SEC does not seek damages from Boudreaux
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Logos, L.P. v. Brinkmeyer
254 S.W.3d 644 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 7, 2008
Specifically, because statutory repeal or abrogation of common-law claims implicates open-courts concerns, it is “disfavored” and the statute may be so interpreted only when its express terms or necessary implications clearly … (2) Texas Logos has pled only acts for which he possesses official immunity and “official immunity is immunity from suit, which makes it jurisdictional and analogous to sovereign immunity.”
Cited 20 timesPublishedTexas Department of Public Safety v. Moore
985 S.W.2d 149 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 30, 1998
Specifically, the Department argues that section 411.007(b) only establishes norms for the Department in promoting its employees, and fails to create any cause of action in Moore. … The Department next argues that sovereign immunity shields the Department as an agency of the state. The Department argues that the UDJA does not act to waive the State’s ordinary immunity from liability.
Cited 149 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 3, 2008
Steak & Ale of Tex., 22 S.W.3d 7 The first difference was that the first sentence of section 9(a) omitted a qualifier found in the statute, “Except as provided in sections 12 and 13 of this Act . . . .” … Expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified, and (2) the testimony is relevant and based on a reliable foundation. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d at 499; Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 28, 2006
This is not to say that religious organizations are immune from all tort claims arising out of employment decisions relating to their pastors. … Torts such as battery, false imprisonment or conversion probably would fall within the exception to church immunity set out in Sherbert [v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 28, 2008
Wadley , 285 S.W. 1084 (Tex. 1926), "to the extent it characterized the plaintiff's failure to establish a statutory prerequisite as jurisdictional."); Mingus , 285 S.W. at 1088 (holding that venue requirements governing … Section 21.306's prohibition against ex parte communications with the Commissioner is clearly addressed to that context. 5.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 3, 2008
Expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified, and (2) the testimony is relevant and based on a reliable foundation. Wilkins , 47 S.W.3d at 499 ; Robinson , 923 S.W.2d at 556 . … The first difference was that the first sentence of section 9(a) omitted a qualifier found in the statute, "Except as provided in sections 12 and 13 of this Act . . . ." Former art. 9033, § 9(a).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 13, 2002
Sovereign Immunity In its fifth and final issue, TxDOT contends that appellees' nuisance claims based on the use of high mast floodlights are barred by sovereign immunity. … Generally, state agencies are immune from suit unless that immunity is waived. Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Able , 35 S.W.3d 608, 611 (Tex. 2000).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 28, 2006
This is not to say that religious organizations are immune from all tort claims arising out of employment decisions relating to their pastors. … Torts such as battery, false imprisonment or conversion probably would fall within the exception to church immunity set out in Sherbert [ v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna