Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Welch v. Miltongreen2 sentences2009Norville v. Phelan, No. 07-07-0035-CV, 2008 WL 190576 , at *8 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Jan. 23, 2008, pet. denied) (not designated for publication); Welch v. Milton, 185 S.W.3d 586, 593 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). 2008Norville v. Phelan, No. 07-07-0035-CV, 2008 WL 190576 , at *8 (Tex.App.–Amarillo Jan. 23, 2008, pet. denied)(not designated for publication); Welch v. Milton , 185 S.W.3d 586, 593 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2006, no pet.). | 8 | 8 |
City of Houston v. Kilburngreen2 sentences2009(The incident was not based on the operation of a motor-driven vehicle or a condition or use of tangible or real property.) "A claim of governmental immunity may be based on an individual's assertion of official immunity and therefore fall within the ambit of section 51.014(5)." Id. at 191 (citing City of Houston v. Kilburn , 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. 1993)); see Guevara , 904 S.W.2d at 656 (interlocutory appeal allowed when the city's argument was based on official immunity). 2005(The incident was not based on the operation of a motor-driven vehicle or a condition or use of tangible or real property.) 4 “A claim of governmental immunity may be based on an individual’s assertion of official immunity and therefore fall within the ambit of section 51.014(5).” Id. at 191 (citing City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex.1993)); see Guevara, 904 S.W.2d at 656 (interlocutory appeal allowed when the city’s argument was based on official immunity). | 7 | 10 |
Baylor College of Medicine v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2019We thus are bound to follow our precedent in Hernandez: that we have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals under section 51.014(a)(5) only to the extent that they are “based on the assertion of official immunity.” See Hernandez, 208 S.W.3d at 11 . 5 the handmade items at the time of the cell search or that the items were confiscated. 2019In this connection, we have held that under the statute, we have jurisdiction to consider only the interlocutory appeal of a challenge “based on the assertion of official immunity.” Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Hernandez, 208 S.W.3d 4, 11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).4 The officers contend that there is no evidence that Boone had possession of 3 The statute states that a person may appeal from the denial of “a motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity.” Tex. Civ. | 5 | 5 |
Laidlaw Waste Systems (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmergreen2 sentences2009(The incident was not based on the operation of a motor-driven vehicle or a condition or use of tangible or real property.) "A claim of governmental immunity may be based on an individual's assertion of official immunity and therefore fall within the ambit of section 51.014(5)." Id. at 191 (citing City of Houston v. Kilburn , 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. 1993)); see Guevara , 904 S.W.2d at 656 (interlocutory appeal allowed when the city's argument was based on official immunity). 2005(The incident was not based on the operation of a motor-driven vehicle or a condition or use of tangible or real property.) 4 “A claim of governmental immunity may be based on an individual’s assertion of official immunity and therefore fall within the ambit of section 51.014(5).” Id. at 191 (citing City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex.1993)); see Guevara, 904 S.W.2d at 656 (interlocutory appeal allowed when the city’s argument was based on official immunity). | 3 | 3 |
Texas a & M University System v. Koseoglugreen2 sentences2008See, e.g. , Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d at 841 ( A Had [the governmental official] filed a motion for summary judgment based on an assertion of official immunity, he clearly would be permitted under Section 51.014(a)(5) to appeal an interlocutory denial of his motion for summary judgment. @ ); see also Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Hernandez , 208 S.W.3d 4, 10 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). 2008See, e.g., Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d at 841 (“Had [the governmental official] filed a motion for summary judgment based on an assertion of official immunity, he clearly would be permitted under Section 51.014(a)(5) to appeal an interlocutory denial of his motion for summary judgment.”); see also Baylor Coll of Med. v. Hernandez, 208 S.W.3d 4, 10 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). | 3 | 3 |
City of Beverly Hills v. Guevaragreen2 sentences1996See City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara, 904 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex.1995). 1996See DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650, 654 (Tex.1995); City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara, 904 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Boozier v. Hambrickgreen2 sentences1995See Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(5); Boozier v. Hambrick, 846 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). 1994See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Amn. § 51.014(5) (Vernon Supp.1994); Boozier v. Hambrick, 846 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). 2 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re Leegreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., In re Lee, 995 S.W.2d 774, 778 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). | 1 | 1 |
DeWitt v. Harris Countygreen1 sentence1996See DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650, 654 (Tex.1995); City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara, 904 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex.1995). | 1 | 1 |
American Physicians Service Group, Inc. v. Port Lavaca Clinic Associatesgreen1 sentence1994Group v. Port Lavaca Clinic Assoc., 843 S.W.2d 675, 678 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). [3] The version of Section 51.014 in place at the time this suit was brought allowed appeals from orders (1) appointing a receiver or trustee; (2) overruling a motion to vacate an order appointing a receiver or trustee; (3) certifying or refusing to certify a class in a class action suit; (4) granting or refusing a temporary injunction, or granting or overruling a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction; (5) denying a motion for summary judgment based on an assertion of official immunity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Irving v. Pak
green
2 sentences2009(The incident was not based on the operation of a motor-driven vehicle or a condition or use of tangible or real property.) "A claim of governmental immunity may be based on an individual's assertion of official immunity and therefore fall within the ambit of section 51.014(5)." Id. at 191 (citing City of Houston v. Kilburn , 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. 1993)); see Guevara , 904 S.W.2d at 656 (interlocutory appeal allowed when the city's argument was based on official immunity). 2005(The incident was not based on the operation of a motor-driven vehicle or a condition or use of tangible or real property.) 4 “A claim of governmental immunity may be based on an individual’s assertion of official immunity and therefore fall within the ambit of section 51.014(5).” Id. at 191 (citing City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex.1993)); see Guevara, 904 S.W.2d at 656 (interlocutory appeal allowed when the city’s argument was based on official immunity). | 3 | 2005–2009 |
State v. McGeorge
green
2 sentences2002Swindall , 960 S.W.2d at 416 ; McGeorge , 925 S.W.2d at 107 . 2002The appellate court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal because the phrase, “assertion of immunity by an individual who is an officer or employee of the state,” is “satisfied where a claim of immunity by a governmental entity in its motion for summary judgment is based on an assertion of official immunity of an employee, even where, as here, the employee is neither a movant for summary judgment or even a party to the suit.” Id. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
City of Houston v. Swindall
green
2 sentences2002Swindall , 960 S.W.2d at 416 ; McGeorge , 925 S.W.2d at 107 . 2002Swindall, 960 S.W.2d at 416 ; McGeorge, 925 S.W.2d at 107 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
City of Lancaster v. Chambers
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Harlingen v. Vega
green
1 sentence2004Vega, 951 S.W.2d at 32 (citing City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex.1993)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Columbus v. Barnstone
green
1 sentence1998City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex.1993); City of Columbus, 921 S.W.2d at 271 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City of Mission v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences1997Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d at 812 ; Ramirez, 865 S.W.2d at 582 . 1997Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d at 812 ; Ramirez, 865 S.W.2d at 582 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |