law governmental immunity | governmental entities state | local government entities | TTCA |
sovereign immunity of the state itself |
The State’s immunity is referred to as sovereign immunity, while that of political subdivisions of the State is
referred to as governmental immunity. Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex.
2006).
Governmental immunity protects political subdivisions of the State, including cities, counties, and
school districts, from suit and liability. Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004);
Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 694 & n.3 (Tex. 2003); see also Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.001(3)(B) (West 2005) (defining “governmental unit” to include
cities). Immunity from suit deprives a court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.W.2d at
224.
TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASES: SOVEREIGN / GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
Franka MD v. Velasquez, No. 07-0131 (Tex. Jan 21, 2011)(Hecht)(TTCA, HCLC, government employee vs
governmental entity)
Section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims Act provides that a suit against a government employee acting within the general
scope of his employment must be dismissed “if it could have been brought under this chapter [that is, under the Act] against
the governmental unit”.1 The court of appeals construed the quoted clause to mean that, to be entitled to dismissal, the
employee must establish that governmental immunity from suit has been waived by the Act.2 But as we stated in Mission
Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia: “we have never interpreted ‘under this chapter’ to only encompass tort
claims for which the Tort Claims Act waives immunity.”3 Rather, “all [common-law] tort theories alleged against a
governmental unit . . . are assumed to be ‘under [the Tort Claims Act]’ for purposes of section 101.106.”4 Accordingly, we
reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
[...] we hold that for section 101.106(f), suit “could have been brought” under the Act against the government regardless of
whether the Act waives immunity from suit. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to the trial court for
further proceedings.
JOHN CHRISTOPHER FRANKA, M.D. AND NAGAKRISHNA REDDY, M.D. v. STACEY VELASQUEZ AND SARAGOSA ALANIZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF THEIR MINOR CHILD, SARAGOSA MARIO ALANIZ; from Bexar County; 4th district
(04-06-00190-CV, 216 SW3d 409, 09-06-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Willett joined. [28 page opinion in pdf]
Justice Medina delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Lehrmann joined. [21-page opinion in pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs 07-0131 FRANKA, M.D. and NAGAKRISHNA REDDY, M.D. v. VELASQUEZ
TxDoI v. Reconveyance Services, Inc., No. 07-0786 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(per curiam)
(sovereign and governmental immunity, plaintiff should have brought ultra vires claim against agency official,
agency itself enjoys sovereign immunity, government entity entitled to grant of plea to the jurisdiction)
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE v. RECONVEYANCE SERVICES, INC.; from Travis County; 3rd
district (03-06-00313-CV, 240 SW3d 418, 08-31-07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc. v. Collin County Community College District (CCCCD) No. 06-0525 (Tex.
Mar. 28, 2008)(per curiam) (governmental immunity, breach of contract, statutory waiver)
TREND OFFSET PRINTING SERVICES, INC. v. COLLIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; from
Collin County; 5th district (05-05-00456-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 04-27-06)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial
court.
City of Dallas v. DeQuire, No. 06-0543 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(per curiam)
(local governmental entities, immunity waiver)
CITY OF DALLAS v. DWIGHT DEQUIRE, MICHAEL FELINI, TERRANCE HOPKINS AND LEROY QUIGG; from
Dallas County; 5th district (05-04-01865-CV, 192 S.W.3d 663, 04-18-06)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial
court.
Nueces County v. San Patricio County, No. 07-0166 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2008)(per curiam) (governmental
immunity, county vs county dispute over wrongfully collected property taxes)
NUECES COUNTY v. SAN PATRICIO COUNTY; from Refugio County; 13th district (13-05-00022 CV, 214 S.W.
3d 536, 12-07-2006)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court vacates the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
PETITIONS DENIED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT IN IMMUNITY CASES
08-0113
THE CITY OF HOUSTON v. SATURN CAPITAL CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district
(14-07-00379-CV, 246 SW3d 242, 12-11-07)(governmental immunity, sovereign immunity, local
governmental units, grant of plea to the jurisdiction reversed, illegal fee, invalid lien)
8-0431
JIMMIE CASIAS, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SANTIAGO G. CASIAS (DECEASED) AND
RACHEL CASIAS, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF CASIAS OIL WELL SERVICE, INC. v. SOMERSET
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (SISD); from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00829-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 04-23-08, pet. denied Aug. 2008) (no waiver of governmental immunity, claim not covered by statutory
waiver, Tooke v. City of Mexia progeny, no waiver by conduct)
08-0119
CITY OF LUBBOCK v. LARRY ACKERS; from Lubbock County; 7th district (07-06-00421-CV, ___ SW3d ___,
11-29-07, pet. denied June 2008)(jurisdictional dismissal of declaratory judgment claim reversed)
07-0437
CONSTABLE JACK F. ABERCIA & OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY v. KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW,
LTD.; from Dallas County; 8th district (08-05-00020-CV, 217 SW3d 688, 02-15-07, pet. denied Jun 2008)
(writ of execution, contempt, good faith immunity, judicial immunity under common law)
07-0872
SE RANCH HOLDINGS, LTD. v. CITY OF DEL RIO, TEXAS; from Val Verde County; 4th district
(04-06-00640-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-29-07, pet. denied March 2008) (governmental immunity)
Because SE Ranch has failed to affirmatively show a clear and unambiguous waiver of the City's immunity
from suit, they have also failed to establish the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.
Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in sustaining the City's plea to the jurisdiction and
dismissing SE Ranch's breach of contract claim for want of subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
07-0904
MARY M. BABIN KENNEDY v. CITY OF HOUSTON, ET AL.; from Harris County; 1st district
(01-07-00097-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-02-07, pet. denied March 2008) (ILA, governmental immunity, TTCA)
Appellant, the City of Houston, ("the City") appeals an order denying its plea to the jurisdiction on grounds of
governmental immunity from suit in a wrongful death action brought by appellee, Mary M. Babin Kennedy
("Kennedy"), individually and as the representative of the estate of Joseph Kennedy ("Joseph"), deceased.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The City appeals the trial
court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction, and Kennedy appeals the trial court's orders (1) granting the
City's motion for partial summary judgment on all of her intentional torts claims and (2) granting the City's
motion to dismiss her claims against the individual city employees. We affirm the trial court's orders granting
the motions for partial summary judgment and to dismiss, and we vacate the order denying the plea to the
jurisdiction.
07-0677
METROCARE EMS, L.P. v. STATE OF TEXAS, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AND TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES; from Jefferson County; 9th
district (09-07-00010-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-07-07, pet denied Feb. 2008)
(governmental entities, sovereign immunity)
From all of the above-discussed jurisdictional evidence, we conclude that MetroCare's declaratory judgment
action is, in fact, a suit against the State for purported contractual reimbursement for which the State has
not waived sovereign immunity. We further conclude that MetroCare has failed to plead and prove the
appropriate requisite intent so as to raise a fact question on whether the State engaged in a "taking" of any
MetroCare-owned property under its eminent domain powers. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28.
Because an eminent-domain type of taking by the State has not been shown, the State is not subject to suit
under article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution. The trial court erred in denying the State's plea to the
jurisdiction. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order denying the State's plea to the jurisdiction and
dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction.
07-0117
STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY; (Dissenting Opinion by
Justice Keyes) from Harris County; 1st district (01-05-00758-CV, 212 SW3d 893, 01-11-07, pet. denied Feb
2008) (Justice O'Neill not sitting)(sovereign immunity, waiver by conduct approved, lawsuits against
universities)
07-0753
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, AND ROBERT LOVITT v.
GURUMURTHY KALYANARAM; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-05-01493-CV, 230 SW3d 921, 08-07-07,
pet. denied Jan 2008) (public employment, assertion of immunity, dismissal of claim for breach of settlement
agreement reversed)
APPELLATE CASELAW LINKS
law ADR-family-law
law ADR
law DSA
law HCLC
law ILA
law TTCA
law WBA
law animals
law arbitration
law attorney-client-disputes
law attorneys-fees
law breach-of-warranty
law child-support
law citation
law civil-commitment
law class-actions
law condemnation
law construction
law consumer-law
law contract
law default-judgment
law discovery-disputes
law discovery-presuit
law divorce-property-division
law domestication-enforcement-of-foreign-judgment
law election-law
law employment
law estoppel
law family-law-international
law family-law
law foreclosure
law forum-selection
law governmental-entities-local
law governmental-entities-state-agencies
law governmental-immunity
law home-owner
law individual-capacity
law informed-consent
law insurance-business-regulation
law insurance-duty-to-defend-indemnify
law jury-selection
law juveniles
law leases
law liens
law limitations
law motion-for-new-trial
law motion-to-reinstate
law nonsuit
law official-capacity
law parental-rights
law parol-evidence-rule
law plenary-power
law post-divorce-actions
law premises-liability
law prisoner-suits
law pro-se-suits
law probate
law product-liability
law property-taxes
law public-employment
law recusal
law religion
law residential-construction
law restricted-appeal
law ripeness-doctrine
law sanctions
law sovereign-immunity
law special-appearance
law standing-doctrine
law statutory-construction
law temporary-orders-TRO
law termination-of-parental-rights
law test-for-abuse-of-discretion
law unauthorized-practice-of-law-UPLC
law venue
law water
law workers-comp
law workplace-injury