Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,255 results
0.62s
Freightliner Corp. v. Ruan Leasing Co.
6 S.W.3d 726 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 18, 1999
Section 82.002(a) clearly states that only loss caused by the seller’s negligence will defeat a duty to indemnify. See id. § 82.002(a). … The exception is clearly intended to make a loss caused by the seller’s negligence a part of the products liability action.
Cited 8 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 11, 2003
Yeo presented testimony from multiple witnesses indicating that she had established a reputation as a world-class athlete that qualified her for significant endorsement and other pecuniary opportunities in her home country … established protected interest.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 7, 2014
Branch at 16 Although courts occasionally use the terms “sovereign immunity” and “governmental immunity” interchangeably, they are distinct concepts. Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. … It is undisputed in this case that the Board’s immunity from suit is waived by section 2001.171 of the APA.17 Because the Board is not immune from suit, neither are the individual appellants who were sued in their official
Cited 0 timesPublishedEx Parte James Richard "Rick" Perry
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 25, 2015
Immunity. … the related doctrine of legislative immunity?
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 28, 2023
Johnson filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting that he was entitled to sovereign immunity as a governmental employee sued in his official capacity for acts occurring within his scope of employment. … —Austin 2000, pet. dism’d). 5 and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” 4 Id. at 205.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 22, 2015
Request for Oral Argument Appellants request oral argument, in the belief that this is a case of first impression on the issue at hand which must be distinguished from the decision establishing sovereign immunity … of immunity " must be expressed in clear and unambiguous language" ) (citing Tex.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 1, 2015
In entering its order, the trial court made the following Finding: … Eric Drake does not allege or produce any evidence to establish a waiver of the sovereign immunity of Defendant Seana Willing with … Appellant then proceeds to present argument about qualified immunity, which was not an issue, as he only brought claims against Ms.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Department of Public Safety v. Charles v. Moore
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 0 timesPublishedTexas Dept. Ins. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas.
212 S.W.3d 870 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 21, 2006
The Division appeals from the declaratory judgment, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under both the APA and the UDJA and that the Division is immune from suit because of sovereign immunity. … However, the advisories clearly refer to the injury model, even quoting its definitions of structural inclusions.
Cited 0 timesPublishedState of Texas// Mid-South Pavers, Inc. v. Mid-South Pavers, Inc.// Cross-Appellee, State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 19, 2007
The Board's final order showed that the Board clearly found both witnesses to be credible. Id. … immunity for those claims.
Cited 0 timesPublishedGeorge Lueck v. State of Texas and Texas Department of Transportation
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 13, 2009
The Department asserts that Lueck's pleadings and its own undisputed jurisdictional evidence establish that he failed to do so. … Texas Iron Works, Inc. , 813 S.W.2d 483, 487-88 (Tex. 1991) (act establishes "a comprehensive administrative review system").
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 19, 2014
Our standard of review in either context is de novo and well-established. 6 The parties join issue with whether section 12.021 applies to DSHS. … See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 118.12 (authorizing the federal Food and Drug Administration to inspect egg production establishments); Tex.
Cited 0 timesPublished422 S.W.3d 46 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 31, 2013
As subsection 171.1014(b) clearly states, a “combined group is a single taxable entity for purposes of the application of the [franchise tax].” … These activities, according to the Comptroller, are clearly a service and not labor supplied for the improvement of real *57 property.
Cited 21 timesPublishedGeorge Lueck v. State of Texas and Texas Department of Transportation
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 13, 2009
The Department asserts that Lueck’s pleadings and its own undisputed jurisdictional evidence establish that he failed to do so. … Texas Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483, 487-88 (Tex. 1991) (act establishes “a comprehensive administrative review system”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedEx Parte James Richard "Rick" Perry
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 20, 2015
It is not necessary to read Section 39.02(a)(2) in this clearly unconstitutional manner. There is no indication that the Legislature intended for the statute to be so read. This reading is the prosecution’s own. … Brown, 566 F.3d 515, 523-24 (5th Cir. 2009) (“None of the Supreme Court’s public employee speech decisions qualifies or limits the First Amendment’s protection of elected government officials’ speech.”), on
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 26, 2005
property is not immune from taxation by reason of Public Law 86-272. … This sustained activity is clearly encompassed by the bright-line rule equating physical presence in the state to a substantial nexus.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHarvey L. Schwartz and Kenneth C. Schwartz v. Tom W. Gregg, Jr.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 28, 2010
“Both direct and circumstantial evidence may be used to establish any material fact.” Ford Motor Co., 135 S.W.3d at 601. … A conflict clearly exists because Gregg represented two parties on opposite sides of a deed involving a decision to transfer all of one parties’ [sic] property to the other.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 1, 2015
s Response to Intervenors' Motion to Find the Prospective Transferees Qualified. … At the conclusion of this review, SOAH is directed to provide a specific finding that prospective transferees either are qualified or are not qualified.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 26, 2005
other type of property is not immune from taxation by reason of Public Law 86-272. … This sustained activity is clearly encompassed by the bright-line rule equating physical presence in the state to a substantial nexus.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 31, 2000
Appellant urges that Phillips was not shown to be qualified to give this opinion. See Tex. R. Evid. 702 (expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education). … He also clearly explained the tests and the indications of intoxication. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion in admitting the officer's expert opinion that appellant was intoxicated.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna