plaintiff has alleged violation in Texas

2023Id. § 554.002(a). “[T]he elements of section 554.002(a) can be considered as jurisdictional facts, when it is necessary to resolve whether a plaintiff has alleged a violation under the [TWA].” State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 881 (Tex. 2009).

2023Thus “the elements of [a claim under the Act] can be considered as jurisdictional facts, when it is necessary to resolve whether a plaintiff has alleged a violation under the Act.” Lueck, 290 S.W.3d at 881 . “[T]o properly ‘report’ under the Act, a public employee must convey information that exposes or corroborates a violation of law or otherwise provide relevant, additional information that will help identify or investigate illegal conduct”; “[c]ommunicating unsupported opinions or legal conclusions is insufficient.” Pridgen, 653 S.W.3d at 184. “[T]he ‘good faith’ limitation modifies all the

2023The “rules expressly countenance more general allegations . . . and the default judgment will stand if the plaintiff has alleged a claim upon which the substantive law will give relief, and has done so with sufficient particularity to give fair notice to the defendant of the basis of his complaint, even though he has stated some element or elements in the form of legal conclusions which will need to be revised if attacked by special exceptions.” Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 683 (Tex. 1979).

2012P. 45(b) (“That an allegation be evidentiary or be of legal conclusion shall not be grounds for objection when fair notice to the opponent is given by the allegations as a whole.”) (emphasis added); Paramount Pipe & Supply Co., 749 S.W.2d at 495 (quoting Stoner, 578 S.W.2d at 683 ) (stating that, “default judgment will stand if the plaintiff has alleged a claim upon which the substantive law will give relief, and has done so with sufficient particularity to give fair notice to defendant of the basis of his complaint, even though he has stated some element or elements in the form of legal concl

2025See claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has four elements: Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. (1) an adverse employment action; (2) speech 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Wooley v. City of involving a matter of public concern; (3) the Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 919 (5th Cir.2000).

2004See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 919 (5th Cir.2000).

2015See Hare v. City ofCorinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir 1998) (citing Colston v. Barnhart (5th Cir. 1997). 20.

2015See Hare v. City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir 1998) (citing Colston v. Barnhart (5th Cir. 1997). 20.

2010Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Garcia , 293 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2009) (citing Lueck, 290 S.W.3d at 881 ).

2010Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Garcia, 293 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2009) (citing Lueck, 290 S.W.3d at 881 ).

2005See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Wilson, 526 U.S. at 609 , 119 S.Ct. at 1697 .

2005See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Wilson, 526 U.S. at 609 , 119 S.Ct. at 1697 .

2025See claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has four elements: Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. (1) an adverse employment action; (2) speech 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Wooley v. City of involving a matter of public concern; (3) the Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 919 (5th Cir.2000).

2025See claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has four elements: Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. (1) an adverse employment action; (2) speech 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Wooley v. City of involving a matter of public concern; (3) the Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 919 (5th Cir.2000).

2020Alamo Heights, 544 S.W.3d at 770 .

2018Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 764 (Tex. 2018) (applying a burden-shifting evidentiary framework to a TCHRA retaliation claim); State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 881 (Tex. 2009) (noting that under the Whistleblower Act, the elements of a claim “can be considered as jurisdictional facts, when it is necessary to resolve whether a plaintiff has alleged a violation under the Act”); see also Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 635 (noting that the school’s argument suggesting that Garcia could not prove a prima-facie case 14 necessarily implied that the elements of the plaintiff’s discrimination claim were at iss

2004Sheshunoff & Co., Inc. v. Scholl , 560 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Tex. Civ.

1983Sheshunoff and Co., Inc. v. Scholl, 560 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, reversed on other grounds 564 S.W.2d 697 (Tex.1978)).

2023“Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, a person making or purporting to make a contract with another as agent for a disclosed principal does not become a 3 party to the contract.” A to Z Rental Ctr. v. Burris, 714 S.W.2d 433, 436 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

2020On a record that shows the City Attorney 26 Id. § 554.002 (requiring the report to be made to a law enforcement authority that is authorized to regulate or enforce the law as to the conduct that is the subject of the report or to investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law); see Lueck, 290 S.W.3d at 881 (concluding “the elements of section 554.002(a) can be considered as jurisdictional facts, when it is necessary to resolve whether a plaintiff has alleged a violation under the Act”). 27 Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 637 (Tex. 1995). 28 Office of the Attorney Gen

2018Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 764 (Tex. 2018) (applying a burden-shifting evidentiary framework to a TCHRA retaliation claim); State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 881 (Tex. 2009) (noting that under the Whistleblower Act, the elements of a claim “can be considered as jurisdictional facts, when it is necessary to resolve whether a plaintiff has alleged a violation under the Act”); see also Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 635 (noting that the school’s argument suggesting that Garcia could not prove a prima-facie case 14 necessarily implied that the elements of the plaintiff’s discrimination claim were at iss

2014Resolution of this appeal turns on whether the conduct of which Meneke complained amounts to a violation of law as required under section 554.002(a). 2 “There is no requirement that an employee identify a specific law when making a report.” Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. McElyea, 239 S.W.3d 842, 850 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied).

2004Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.1998); Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir.1994).

2004Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.1998); Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir.1994).

2002Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 702 (5th Cir.), clarified on other grounds, 186 F.3d 633 (5th Cir.1999); Lampkin v. City of Nacogdoches, 7 F.3d 430, 434 (5th *709 Cir.1993).

2002Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 702 (5th Cir.), clarified on other grounds, 186 F.3d 633 (5th Cir.1999); Lampkin v. City of Nacogdoches, 7 F.3d 430, 434 (5th *709 Cir.1993).

2001In support of this contention, Steven directs us to UNL, Inc. v. Oak Hills Photo Finishing, Inc., which holds that “a default judgment will stand if the plaintiff has alleged a claim upon which the substantive law will give relief and has done so with sufficient particularity to give fair notice to the defendant of the basis of his complaint.” 733 S.W.2d 402, 406 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, no writ).