Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. App. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. App. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson (texapp, 2025-05-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Black, 938 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex. App.-Waco 1996, writ denied.) Because no Sabine Pilot cause Because we conclude the issue of good faith is of action can be asserted against the State, dispositive, we will address that element first.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings v. Carol Birch, Charles Homer, Ann Landeros and Carol Wood (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Branch at Galveston v. Hohman, 6 S.W.3d 767, 777 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134, 134-35 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, writ denied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alcala v. Texas Webb County
S.D. Tex. · 2009 · confidence medium
March 31, 2008) (holding that the county and its tax assessor-collector, in his official capacity, were entitled to sovereign immunity against the plaintiffs common-law retaliatory discharge claim); Salazar v. Lopez, 88 S.W.3d 351, 352-353 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.); Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, writ denied); Hohman, 6 S.W.3d at 777 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Midland Independent School District v. Watley
Tex. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Branch at Galveston v. Hohman, 6 S.W.3d 767, 777 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, writ denied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Salazar v. Lopez (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Univ. of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Hohman, 6 S.W.3d 767, 777 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, writ denied); see also Redmon v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2001 WL 182849 , at *1 (N.D.Tex.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Hohman (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex.App. — Waco 1996, writ denied.) Because no Sabine Pilot cause of action can be asserted against the State, government officials sued in their official capacities are similarly protected.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cuellar v. State
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Ex parte Matthews, 938 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matthew CARROLL, Appellant,
v.
Kermit BLACK, Et Al., Appellees
10-96-049-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Feb 19, 1997.
938 S.W.2d 134
1996 WL 729267
Eric Samuelson, Austin, for Appellant., William W. KHgarlin, Santa Fe, NM, Ami-cus, for Appellant., Dan Morales, Attorney General, Jorge Vega, First Assistant Attorney General, La-quita A Hamilton, Deputy Attorney General for Litigation, Toni Hunter, Chief, General Litigation Division, Blake 0. Brodersen, Assistant Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, for Appellees.
Davis, Cummings, Vance.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

VANCE, Justice.

Matthew Carroll sued several Texas A & M University officials claiming wrongful discharge. The defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting the defense of sovereign immunity. After a hearing, the court granted the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Carroll appeals on one point: Does the Sabine Pilot exception to the employment-at-will doctrine apply to public employees asserting the defense of sovereign immunity? See Sabine Pilot Serv. Inc. v. Rauch, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.1985).

Texas has long adhered to the employment-at-will doctrine. East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 75, 10 S.W. 99, 102 (1888). Some exceptions have been made to the doctrine by statute. See, e.g., Tex Labor Code Ann. § 451.001 (Vernon 1996) (discharge for filing worker’s compensation claim); Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.002 (Whistleblower Act) (Vernon Supp. 1996). In 1985, our Supreme Court created a “very narrow” judicial exception to the employment-at-will doctrine: an employer may not discharge an employee “for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act.” Sabine Pilot, 687 S.W.2d at 735.

The appellees do not dispute that the Sabine Pilot exception to the at-will doctrine exists. Instead, they argue that the exception does not overcome their defense of sovereign immunity. As state officials who were acting in their official capacity, appellees assert that — absent legislative consent or statutory exception — they are entitled to the immunity defense. See Bagg v. University of Texas Med. Branch, 726 S.W.2d 582, 586 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref d n.r.e.).

The justifications for sovereign immunity have long been criticized. [1] Green Intern., Inc. v. State, 877 S.W.2d 428, 433 (Tex.[*135] App.—Austin 1994, writ denied, order withdrawn, dism’d). However, the waiver of sovereign immunity is a matter properly addressed to the legislature. University of Texas Med. Branch v. York, 871 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Tex.1994).

Because we find neither legislative consent nor a statutory exception to sovereign immunity, we cannot say the trial court erred in dismissing CarrolTs suit. We affirm the judgment.

1

. Former Supreme Court Justice William Kilgar-lin has filed an amicus curiae brief denouncing the doctrines of sovereign immunity and employment-at-will as "relics of the past.”