City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: City of Dallas v. Albert (tex, 2011-08-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Dallas v. Albert (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. · 2011 · confidence medium
City of Houston v. Williams, 216 S.W.3d 827, 829 (Tex.2007); City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386, 386-87 (Tex.2006); McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton, 197 S.W.3d 387, 387 (Tex.2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The City of Houston v. Steve Williams
Tex. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., City of Midland v. Goerlitz, 201 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex.2006) (per curiam); City of Houston v. Jones, 197 S.W.3d 391, 392 (Tex.2006) (per cu-riam); City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386, 386-87 (Tex.2006) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" John McDonald and Cheryl McDonald, Individually and as Next Friend for Minor Patrick Tucker McDonald v. City of the Colony, Texas
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , 161 S.W.3d 3, 6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004), rev’d on other grounds , 197 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2006).
cited Cited "see" John McDonald and Cheryl McDonald, Individually and as Next Friend for Minor Patrick Tucker McDonald v. City of the Colony, Texas
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 3, 6 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004), rev’d on other grounds, 197 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2006).
cited Cited "see" City of Houston v. Southern Electrical Services, Inc., as Assignee of the Caddell Construction Company, Inc.
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , 197 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2006).
discussed Cited "see" City of Dallas v. Martin
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386, 386-87 (Tex.2006); McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton, 197 S.W.3d 387, 387 (Tex.2006). *644 In addition to their breach of contract claims, appellees also brought a declaratory judgment action.
cited Cited "see" City of Dallas v. Albert
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386, 386-87 (Tex.2006); McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton, 197 S.W.3d 387, 387 (Tex.2006).
cited Cited "see" City of Houston v. Southern Electrical Services, Inc., as Assignee of the Morganti Group, Inc.
Tex. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , 197 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." City of Corinth v. NUROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. (2×)
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Bell v. City of Grand Prairie, 221 S.W.3d 317 , 323 n. 4 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) (op. on reh’g); City of Dallas v. Albert, 214 S.W.3d 631, 636-37 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. granted) (op. on reh’g); see also City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386, 386-87 (Tex.2006) (holding that remand is proper to give the proponent of waiver of immunity an opportunity to argue that chapter 271 applies because it applies retroactively); McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton, 197 S.W.3d 387 (Tex.2006) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." the City of Corinth, Texas v. Nurock Development, Inc., Nurock Corporation, NDG-Tower Ridge 1, LLC and Tower Ridge Corinth 1, Ltd.
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Bell v. City of Grand Prairie, 221 S.W.3d 317 , 323 n.4 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (op. on reh’g); City of Dallas v. Albert, 214 S.W.3d 631 , 636–37 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. filed) (op. on reh’g); see also City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 386 , 386–87 (Tex. 2006) (holding that remand is proper to give the proponent of waiver of immunity an opportunity to argue that chapter 271 applies because it applies retroactively); McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton, 197 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. 2006) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." the City of Corinth, Texas v. Nurock Development, Inc., Nurock Corporation, NDG-Tower Ridge 1, LLC and Tower Ridge Corinth 1, Ltd.
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Bell v. City of Grand Prairie , 221 S.W.3d 317 , 323 n.4 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (op. on reh’g); City of Dallas v. Albert , 214 S.W.3d 631 , 636–37 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. filed) (op. on reh’g); see also City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , 197 S.W.3d 386 , 386–87 (Tex. 2006) (holding that remand is proper to give the proponent of waiver of immunity an opportunity to argue that chapter 271 applies because it applies retroactively); McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton , 197 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. 2006) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tooke v. City of Mexia (2×)
Tex. · 2006 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 3, 7-8 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (either “sue and be sued” or "plead and be impleaded” waives sovereign immunity), rev’d, 197 S.W.3d 386 , 2006 WL 1793299 (Tex.2006) (per curiam), with Jackson v. City of Galveston, 837 S.W.2d 868, 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. denied) (neither "sue and be sued” nor “plead and be impleaded” waived sovereign immunity); compare Townsend v. Mem'l Med.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CITY OF HOUSTON, Petitioner,
v.
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., Respondent
04-0406.
Texas Supreme Court.
Jun 30, 2006.
197 S.W.3d 386
2006 Tex. LEXIS 628
2006 WL 1793299
Bertrand L. Pourteau II, Senior Asst. City Atty., Arturo G. Michel, City Atty., Hope E. Hammill-Reh, Asst. City Atty., Michael D. Hudgins, The Hudgins Law Firm, Eric Carl Nordstrom, Chandra La-shae Horne, Hudgins, Hudgins & Warrick, P.C., Houston, for petitioner., J. Allen Smith, Scott James Conrad, Bradley E. McLain, SettlePou, Dallas, for respondent.
Wainwright, Brister, Willett.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. sued the City of Houston for breach of a contract to purchase a billboard. The trial court overruled the City’s plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity from suit, and the City took an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed. 161 S.W.3d 3, 8 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004). Clear Channel contends, and the court of appeals held, that a city’s immunity from suit is waived by section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code. We have rejected that position today in Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 2006 WL 1792223 (Tex.2006). Although Clear Channel asserted in the trial court that the City’s immunity is also waived by a provision of its charter authorizing it to “sue or be sued”, Clear Channel has not made that argument in this Court, and it was not addressed by the court of appeals.

While this case has been pending on appeal, the Legislature has enacted sections 271.151-.160 of the Local Government Code, which waive immunity from suit for certain claims against local governmental entities, including municipalities, based on agreements “for providing goods or services”. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 271.151(2). Sections 271.152-.154 “apply to a claim that arises under a contract executed before [September 1, 2005] ... if sovereign immunity has not been waived with respect to the claim” before that date. Act of May 23, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 604, § 2, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1548, 1549. Clear Channel should have the opportunity to argue in the trial court that the City’s[*387] immunity from suit is waived by these provisions.

Accordingly, we grant the City of Houston’s petition for review, and without hearing oral argument, TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Justice WAINWRIGHT, Justice BRISTER, and Justice WILLETT did not participate in this decision.