exception to sovereign immunity in Texas

2025Ultra vires claims are an exception to sovereign immunity if the complaining party can “allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.” Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 .

2025Ultra vires claims are an exception to sovereign immunity if the complaining party can “allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.” City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009).

2015See Tarrant County v. English, 989 S.W.2d 368, 374 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied); Golden Harvest Co. v. City of Dallas, 942 S.W.2d 682 , 688–90 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1997, writ denied) (holding sovereign immunity does not make city immune from action for nuisance caused by city's non-negligent or intentional acts where suit brought under article I, section 17 of Constitution).

2002Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 8 S.W.3d at 733 ; see also Tarrant County v. English, 989 S.W.2d 368, 374 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied); Golden Harvest Co., 942 S.W.2d at 688-90 .

2015See Leeper, 893 S.W.2d at 438, 446 ; Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 . 2.

2015Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 433, 446 (Tex. 1994)). 8 Even if we were to conclude that Doe’s claims fall within this exception to sovereign immunity, however, Doe has failed to allege a legally cognizable interest in obtaining a copy of Acevedo’s recommendation.

2004Id. at 861 (Hecht, J., concurring) (“[I]t has long been held that the State can waive immunity by filing suit.”); State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 127 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. filed) (“It is well established that the State’s initiation of suit is an exception to sovereign immunity from suit clearly recognized by Texas courts.”).

2004Id. at 861 (Hecht, J., concurring) ("[I]t has long been held that the State can waive immunity by filing suit."); State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. , 127 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, pet. filed) ("It is well established that the State's initiation of suit is an exception to sovereign immunity from suit clearly recognized by Texas courts.").

2004Id. at 861 (Hecht, J., concurring) (“[I]t has long been held that the State can waive immunity by filing suit.”); State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 127 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. filed) (“It is well established that the State’s initiation of suit is an exception to sovereign immunity from suit clearly recognized by Texas courts.”).

2004Id. at 861 (Hecht, J., concurring) ("[I]t has long been held that the State can waive immunity by filing suit."); State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. , 127 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, pet. filed) ("It is well established that the State's initiation of suit is an exception to sovereign immunity from suit clearly recognized by Texas courts.").

2000See Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex. 1997).

2000See Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex.1997).

2015See Tarrant County v. English, 989 S.W.2d 368, 374 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied); Golden Harvest Co. v. City of Dallas, 942 S.W.2d 682 , 688–90 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1997, writ denied) (holding sovereign immunity does not make city immune from action for nuisance caused by city's non-negligent or intentional acts where suit brought under article I, section 17 of Constitution).

2002Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 8 S.W.3d at 733 ; see also Tarrant County v. English, 989 S.W.2d 368, 374 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied); Golden Harvest Co., 942 S.W.2d at 688-90 .

2007Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 177 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. granted) (“Because the plaintiffs have brought a declaratory judgment action to determine the proper construction of the applicable statutes and to obtain a declaration of their rights, status and legal relations under the statutes to establish their entitlement to pension benefits in HMEPS, we hold that their action does not implicate the doctrine of governmental immunity.”); Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132 , 136- 37 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (suit to declare government code provision u

2007Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 111 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist. 2005, pet. granted) ("Because the plaintiffs have brought a declaratory judgment action to determine the proper construction of the applicable statutes and to obtain a declaration of their rights, status and legal relations under the statutes to establish their entitlement to pension benefits in HMEPS, we hold that their action does not implicate the doctrine of governmental immunity. ”); Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132, 136-37 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (suit to declare government code provision uncons

2018See City of Socorro v. Campos, 510 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, pet. denied) (citing Little– Tex Insulation, 39 S.W.3d at 598 ) (governmental immunity “does not extend to takings, whether outright or by damage or destruction of property”); see also Spease v. Olivares, 509 S.W.3d 512, 520 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (recognizing that, as a general proposition, a takings claim is an exception to sovereign immunity).

2016General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Company Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591, 598 (Tex.2001).

2007Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 177 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. granted) (“Because the plaintiffs have brought a declaratory judgment action to determine the proper construction of the applicable statutes and to obtain a declaration of their rights, status and legal relations under the statutes to establish their entitlement to pension benefits in HMEPS, we hold that their action does not implicate the doctrine of governmental immunity.”); Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132 , 136- 37 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (suit to declare government code provision u

2007Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell , 177 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. granted) ("Because the plaintiffs have brought a declaratory judgment action to determine the proper construction of the applicable statutes and to obtain a declaration of their rights, status and legal relations under the statutes to establish their entitlement to pension benefits in HMEPS, we hold that their action does not implicate the doctrine of governmental immunity."); Rylander v. Caldwell , 23 S.W.3d 132, 136-37 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, no pet.) (suit to declare government code provision

2025Thus, ultra vires suits are seen as an exception to sovereign immunity, Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d at 621 , and “[i]t is . . . well settled that immunity does not bar ultra vires suits against state officials,” Hidalgo Cnty.

2025See Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2011) (Ultra vires is an exception to sovereign immunity “under which claims may be brought against a state official for nondiscretionary acts unauthorized by law.”).

2024In Hall, however, the supreme court held that, because the chancellor was given unrestricted authority to interpret federal privacy law, the allegation that he misinterpreted the law did not constitute an ultra vires act or an exception to sovereign immunity. 508 S.W.3d at 241–43.

2018Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232, 238 (Tex. 2017).

2018City of Dallas v. Jennings, 142 S.W.3d 310, 316 (Tex. 2004).

2013Jennings, 142 S.W.3d at 311 ; City of Abilene v. Downs, 367 S.W.2d 153, 159 (Tex. 1963); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 8 S.W.3d 727, 733 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.).

2013Jennings, 142 S.W.3d at 311 ; City of Abilene v. Downs, 367 S.W.2d 153, 159 (Tex. 1963); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 8 S.W.3d 727, 733 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.).

2002Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 8 S.W.3d at 733 ; see also Tarrant County v. English, 989 S.W.2d 368, 374 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied); Golden Harvest Co., 942 S.W.2d at 688-90 .

2025Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664-68 (1974) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 209 (1908)).

2018See City of Socorro v. Campos, 510 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, pet. denied) (citing Little– Tex Insulation, 39 S.W.3d at 598 ) (governmental immunity “does not extend to takings, whether outright or by damage or destruction of property”); see also Spease v. Olivares, 509 S.W.3d 512, 520 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (recognizing that, as a general proposition, a takings claim is an exception to sovereign immunity).

2018See City of Socorro v. Campos, 510 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, pet. denied) (citing Little– Tex Insulation, 39 S.W.3d at 598 ) (governmental immunity “does not extend to takings, whether outright or by damage or destruction of property”); see also Spease v. Olivares, 509 S.W.3d 512, 520 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (recognizing that, as a general proposition, a takings claim is an exception to sovereign immunity).

2015See Tex. Dep’t of Ins. v. Reconveyance Servs., 306 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex. 2010); see also Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372–73 (―Nonetheless, as a technical matter, the governmental entities themselves—as opposed to their officers in their official capacity—remain immune from suit.‖).

2013Jennings, 142 S.W.3d at 311 ; City of Abilene v. Downs, 367 S.W.2d 153, 159 (Tex. 1963); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 8 S.W.3d 727, 733 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.).

2007Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 111 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist. 2005, pet. granted) ("Because the plaintiffs have brought a declaratory judgment action to determine the proper construction of the applicable statutes and to obtain a declaration of their rights, status and legal relations under the statutes to establish their entitlement to pension benefits in HMEPS, we hold that their action does not implicate the doctrine of governmental immunity. ”); Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132, 136-37 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (suit to declare government code provision uncons

2007See City of Galveston v. Posnainsky, 62 Tex. 118, 127 (1884).

2002See Kerrville State Hosp., 28 S.W.3d at 3 .