Gary Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Gary Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Zuniga v. Calderon (txwd, 2019-12-19) · Strongest negative: University of Rhode Island v. A.W. Chesterton Company (ca1, 1993-08-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" University of Rhode Island v. A.W. Chesterton Company (8×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 849 , 109 S.Ct. 129 , 102 L.Ed.2d 102 (1988) (mere statutory definition as “agency” suggests “alter ego”); Kashani, 813 F.2d at 847 (holding that entity’s designation as “separate” from State for some purposes is inconclusive of autonomy); Krieger, 765 F.Supp. at 759 (finding term “independent agency” inconclusive evidence of autonomy).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zuniga v. Calderon
W.D. Tex. · 2019 · confidence medium
The Eleventh Amendment “does not ordinarily apply to municipal corporations and other political subdivisions of the state.” Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 -9- U.S. 651, 667 & n. 12 (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
D.S.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
Ports Authority, 58 F.3d 1051, 1054-55 (4th Cir.1995); Lew is v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198-99 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chacko v. Texas a & M University
S.D. Tex. · 1997 · confidence medium
With respect to a university, “[t]he Fifth Circuit has developed the following list of factors to use when conducting this inquiry: 1) the status of the university under state law; 2) the degree of state control over the university; and 3) the extent to which a money judgment against the university would interfere with the fiscal autonomy of the state.” Idoux, 817 F.Supp. at 640 -41 (citing Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 849 , 109 S.Ct. 129 , 102 L.Ed.2d 102 (1988); United Carolina Bank v. Board of Regents, 665 F.2d 553, 557 (5th Cir.1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Les Hadley v. North Arkansas Community Technical College (2×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
For example, the Department of Finance and Administration determined that community colleges are state agencies for purposes of exempting them from taxation, and the Attorney General determined that they are state agencies that qualify for grants from the Natural and Cultural Resources Grants and Trust Fund 7 The total local tax that may be levied for community college purposes is ten miles. § 6-61-503(a) 8 Accord Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 199 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 849 , 109 S.Ct. 129 , 102 L.Ed.2d 102 (1988); Van Pilsum, 863 F.Supp. at 937-38 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Les Hadley v. North AR Community
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
For example, the Department of Finance and Administration determined that community colleges are state agencies for purposes of exempting them from taxation, and the Attorney General determined that they are state agencies that qualify for grants from the Natural and Cultural Resources Grants and Trust Fund. 7 The total local tax that may be levied for community college purposes is ten mills. § 6-61-503(a). 8 Accord Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 199 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 849 (1988); Van Pilsum, 863 F. Supp. at 937-38 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Board v. Amoco Oil Co. (4×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Iowa · 1995 · confidence medium
See University of Rhode Island, 2 F.3d at 1207 ; Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1988); Kashani, 813 F.2d at 847 ; Hall, 742 F.2d at 306 ; United Carolina Bank v. Board of Regents, 665 F.2d 553, 558 (5th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laxey v. Louisiana Board of Trustees
5th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Public universities may qualify for immunity as members of the state team, depending upon “their status under state law and their relationship to state government.” Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.) (citing United Carolina Bank v. Board of Regents, 665 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. Unit A 1982)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 849 , 109 S.Ct. 129 , 102 L.Ed.2d 102 (1988). .
examined Cited as authority (rule) University v. A.W. Chesterton (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Jacintoport ___ ___________ Corp., 762 F.2d at 442 (noting commission's right to "employ _____ private attorneys to represent it" as evidence that it has separate legal identity from State); Tradigrain, Inc. v. Missis- ________________ _______ sippi State Port Auth., 701 F.2d 1131, 1136 (5th Cir. 1983) ________________________ (Thornberry, J., dissenting) (noting as evidence of citizenship that Authority "employs its own counsel, and is not represented by the State of Mississippi in this action"); cf. Hall, 742 F.2d ___ ____ at 305 (university's counsel is state attorney general). 16 Lewis…
examined Cited as authority (rule) University v. A.W. Chesterton (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Jacintoport Corp., 762 F.2d at 442 (noting commission's right to "employ private attorneys to represent it" as evidence that it has separate legal identity from State); Tradigrain, Inc. v. Missis- sippi State Port Auth., 701 F.2d 1131, 1136 (5th Cir. 1983) (Thornberry, J., dissenting) (noting as evidence of citizenship that Authority "employs its own counsel, and is not represented by the State of Mississippi in this action"); cf. Hall, 742 F.2d at 305 (university's counsel is state attorney general). 16 Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Feary v. Regional Transit Authority
E.D. La. · 1988 · confidence medium
Lewis v. Midwestern State University, 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1988) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)); see Jacintoport Corp. v. Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, 762 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1985) (independent local entities are not entitled to immunity "even though they exercise a ‘slice of state power”’ (quoting Lake Country Estates v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S.Ct. 1171, 1177 , 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979))), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1057 , 106 S.Ct. 797 , 88 L.Ed.2d 774 (1986). .
discussed Cited "see" Maryland Stadium Authority v. Ellerbe Becket Inc.
4th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198-99 (5th Cir.1988) (gubernatorial appointment of governing body “argue[sj strongly” in favor of finding that entity is arm of the state); Kashani, 813 F.2d at 847 (finding it “[v]ery significant” that “the majority of the members of Purdue’s governing council, the Board of Trustees, are selected by the Governor”); Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir.1985) (“Troy State University is subject to substantial state control: its Board of Trustees ... is composed in part of state officials and in part of gubernatorial ap…
discussed Cited "see" Maryland Stadium Authority University System of Maryland v. Ellerbe Becket Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Maryland Stadium Authority University System of Maryland v. Ellerbe Becket Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation
4th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198-99 (5th Cir.1988) (gubernatorial appointment of governing body "argue[s] strongly" in favor of finding that entity is arm of the state); Kashani, 813 F.2d at 847 (finding it "[v]ery significant" that "the majority of the members of Purdue's governing council, the Board of Trustees, are selected by the Governor"); Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir.1985) ("Troy State University is subject to substantial state control: its Board of Trustees . . . is composed in part of state officials and in part of gubernatorial appointees.").
discussed Cited "see" Idoux v. Lamar University System (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D. Tex. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. Midwestern State University, 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 849 , 109 S.Ct. 129 , 102 L.Ed.2d 102 (1988); United Carolina Bank v. Board of Regents of Stephen F. Austin State University, 665 F.2d 553, 557 (5th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." U.S. Oil Recovery Site Potentially Responsible Parties Grp. v. R.R. Comm'n of Tex.
5th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ. , 837 F.2d 197 , 198-99 (5th Cir. 1988) (Midwestern State University entitled to sovereign immunity); Wallace v. Tex. Tech Univ. , 80 F.3d 1042 , 1047 n.3 (5th Cir. 1996) ("Texas Tech, as a state institution, clearly enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity."); United States v. Tex. Tech Univ. , 171 F.3d 279 , 289 n.14 (5th Cir. 1999) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." USOR Site PRP Group v. A & M Contractors, Inc., et
5th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197 , 198–99 4 Case: 17-20361 Document: 00514582065 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/01/2018 No. 17-20361 (5th Cir. 1988) (Midwestern State University entitled to sovereign immunity); Wallace v. Tex. Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042 , 1047 n.3 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Texas Tech, as a state institution, clearly enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); United States v. Tex. Tech Univ., 171 F.3d 279 , 289 n.14 (5th Cir. 1999) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States ex rel. King v. University of Texas Health Science Center
S.D. Tex. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that a public university that received private donations, municipal taxes, and revenues from commercial operations was immune to money judgments because it was an arm of the State); Richardson, 118 F.3d at 455 (“Although Southern has the authority to raise funds by accepting donations, bequests, or other forms of financial assistance from private persons or the federal government ... [bjecause Southern and its Board are considered an agency of the.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine (2×)
W.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lewis v. Midwestern State University, 837 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 849 , 109 S.Ct. 129 , 102 L.Ed.2d 102 (1988); Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1007 , 106 S.Ct. 530 , 88 L.Ed.2d 462 (1985); Hall, supra, at 306; Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M, 737 F.2d 1317 , 1333 n. 28 (5th Cir.1984). 16 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Van Pilsum v. Iowa State University of Science & Technology
S.D. Iowa · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 199 (5th Cir.1988) (“ ‘[Cjrucial question * * * is whether use of these unappropriated funds to pay a damage award * * * would interfere with the fiscal autonomy and political sovereignty of Tex:as.’”) (quoting United Carolina Bank v. Board of Regents, 665 F.2d 553, 560 (5th Cir.1982)); Hall v. Medical College of Ohio at Toledo, 742 F.2d 299, 304-05 (6th Cir.1984) (appropriated revenues were linked to non-appropriated revenues so that any judgment against the university would have to be covered by an increase in state appropriatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
86-1720.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 10, 1988.
837 F.2d 197
Holly Crampton, Wichita Falls, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., Esther Hajdar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Leslie L. McCollom, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., Roger An-son Lee, Wichita Falls, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Thornberry, Politz, Jolly.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
[*198] THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

Gary Lewis brought this action against Midwestern State University, its Board of Regents, and two university officials, alleging federal civil rights and state law claims because of the university’s treatment of him. The district court dismissed Lewis’ claims for damages on the basis of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm.

Lewis filed this action originally in Texas state court. The defendants removed to federal district court. Lewis’ complaint alleged that he was denied the right to teach one-on-one applied piano lessons, and instead was assigned to teach classroom piano and music appreciation. Lewis viewed the reassignment as part of a campaign by university officials to damage his reputation and force him to resign. He asserted that these actions deprived him of property and liberty without due process.

The district court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Lewis’ claim for damages was barred by sovereign immunity. To secure immediate review of the sovereign immunity issue, Lewis agreed to the dismissal of all claims except the one for damages against the university. On the basis of a stipulation and agreed order, the district court entered final judgment. [1]

The district court decided the sovereign immunity issue on summary judgment. For summary judgment to be proper, there can be no genuine issue of material fact, and the defendants must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

Only the state government and “arms of the state” qualify for sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The Amendment does not ordinarily apply to municipal corporations and other political subdivisions of the state. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1358 & n. 12, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Public universities may qualify for immunity or not depending on their status under state law and their relationship to state government.

In United Carolina Bank v. Board of Regents, 665 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. Unit A 1982), we formulated a detailed analysis for resolving the status of public universities. That analysis focused on the status of the university under state law, the degree of state control over the university, and whether a money judgment against the university would, because of the status of the university’s funds, interfere with the fiscal autonomy of the state. Id. at 557-61. Applying those factors, we concluded in United Carolina Bank that Stephen F. Austin University was an arm of the state and therefore entitled to immunity.

Midwestern State University shares many of the characteristics of Stephen F. Austin University, as found by the court in United Carolina Bank. First, the university is classified as a “general academic teaching institution” under Texas law, and is therefore an agency of the state. Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 61.003(3); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 6252-9b, § 2(8)(B). In addition, although the university was not originally created by state law, since 1961 it had been subject to Tex.Educ.Code Ann. sections 95 and 103. These statutes authorize the operation of the university and provide for its governance. In particular, under section 103.03 the university’s Board of Regents is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Texas senate. Also, under section 61 the university is subject to oversight by the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System. These characteristics argue strongly that, like Stephen F. Austin University, Midwestern[*199] State University is an arm of the state and entitled to immunity.

The focus of Lewis’ argument is the university’s ownership of funds other than those appropriated by the state government. Lewis notes that, before the university became a state university, it received private donations and municipal taxes that it used to buy land and construct buildings. The university currently receives not only private donations but revenues from its commercial operations such as the bookstore and the cafeteria. Because a judgment could be satisfied out of these “non-state” funds, Lewis claims, the university is not entitled to sovereign immunity.

We rejected a similar argument in United Carolina Bank. That case held that “the eleventh amendment is not applicable only where payment would be directly out of the state treasury.” 665 F.2d at 560. Instead, the “crucial question ... is whether use of these unappropriated funds to pay a damage award ... would interfere with the fiscal autonomy and political sovereignty of Texas.” Id. at 560-61. In answering that question, our reasoning in United Carolina Bank is exactly on point here: “These local funds, collected under authority of state law, Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 51.004, are either held in the Treasury or restricted as to use. In either event they are subject to audit and budget planning. Thus any award from those funds would directly interfere with the state’s fiscal autonomy.” Id. at 561.

The district court correctly held that Midwestern State University is protected from an award of damages by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

1

. Initially, we have some doubt that Lewis’ allegation made out a viable claim for damages under federal law. Nevertheless, we hesitate to dismiss Lewis' appeal on that ground. The district court never ruled on the merits of this case; indeed, the time for discovery had not yet expired when the court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of sovereign immunity. Thus, this case is unlike Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 106 S.Ct. 507, 522 n. 6, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (declining to consider the Eleventh Amendment issue when the facts presented no substantive due process claim). In Ewing, the district court had conducted a bench trial and had ruled on the merits of the due process claim.