assertion of sovereign immunity in Texas

2024“Because the assertion of sovereign immunity implicates the court’s jurisdiction, immunity is properly raised in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Id. at 388 (citing Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. 2016)).

2023“Because the assertion of sovereign immunity implicates the courts’ jurisdiction, immunity is properly raised in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Id. at 388 (citing Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. 2016)).

2021Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. 2016); Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 91 (Tex. 2012).

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “Procedurally, the assertion of sovereign immunity implicates the trial court’s jurisdiction and is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” PHI, Inc. v. Texas Juvenile Justice Dep’t, No. 18-0099, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2019 WL 1873431 , at *3 (Tex. Apr. 26, 2019) (citing Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. 2016); Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 91 (Tex. 2012)).

2022“Where a government entity challenges jurisdiction on the basis of immunity, ‘the plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity.’” Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Fayette Cnty., 453 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Dall.

2022Further, “Where a government entity challenges jurisdiction on the basis of immunity, ‘the plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity.’” Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Fayette Cnty., 453 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Dall.

2024See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 376 (1990) (“Municipal defenses—including an assertion of sovereign immunity—to a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law.” (quoting Owen, 445 U.S. at 647 n.30)); see also Thomas v. Allen, 837 S.W.2d 631, 632 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam) (acknowledging that state court cannot refuse to entertain Section 1983 claim on ground that it was barred by sovereign immunity).

2019On the other hand, for the county defendants there is no governmental immunity from suit regarding Somerville’s section 1983 claim. “‘Municipal defenses-including an assertion of sovereign immunity-to a federal right of action are, of course controlled by federal law.’” County of Dallas v. Sempe, 151 S.W.3d 291, 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004 pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (quoting Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 376 , 110 S. Ct. 2430 , 110 L.

2024See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 376 (1990) (“Municipal defenses—including an assertion of sovereign immunity—to a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law.” (quoting Owen, 445 U.S. at 647 n.30)); see also Thomas v. Allen, 837 S.W.2d 631, 632 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam) (acknowledging that state court cannot refuse to entertain Section 1983 claim on ground that it was barred by sovereign immunity).

2007See Howlett v. Rose , 496 U.S. 356, 375-76 (1990) (citing Owen v. City of Independence , 445 U.S. 622 , 647 n.30 (1980)) ("Municipal defenses-including an assertion of sovereign immunity-to a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law"); Campos v. Nueces County , 162 S.W.3d 778, 785 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2005, pet. denied).

2025Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003).

2025For a plaintiff to over- come a defendant’s assertion of sovereign immunity, “the plaintiff must affirma- tively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity.” Whitley, 104 S.W.3d at 542 .

2012See Thomas v. Long , 207 S.W.3d 334, 338 (Tex. 2006) (recognizing that "Legislature provided for an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies a governmental unit's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, irrespective of the procedural vehicle used"); see also Tex. Civ.

2012See Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 338 (Tex. 2006) (recognizing that “Legislature provided for an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies a governmental unit’s challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, irrespective of the procedural vehicle used”); see also Tex. Civ.

2002See Prasifka , 450 S.W.2d at 835 .

2002See Prasifka, 450 S.W.2d at 835 .

2024See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 376 (1990) (“Municipal defenses—including an assertion of sovereign immunity—to a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law.” (quoting Owen, 445 U.S. at 647 n.30)); see also Thomas v. Allen, 837 S.W.2d 631, 632 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam) (acknowledging that state court cannot refuse to entertain Section 1983 claim on ground that it was barred by sovereign immunity).

2022See Watson v. City of Southlake, 594 S.W.3d 506 , 524 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, pet. denied) (considering the issue of the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which was raised in a plea to the jurisdiction).

2021Oaks Hosp., TPIA does not clearly and unambiguously waive LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171, 177 (Tex. 2012). sovereign immunity for Qatar Foundation's suit, and Procedurally, the assertion of sovereign immunity thus the district court lacks jurisdiction.

2019State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007).

2019On the other hand, for the county defendants there is no governmental immunity from suit regarding Somerville’s section 1983 claim. “‘Municipal defenses-including an assertion of sovereign immunity-to a federal right of action are, of course controlled by federal law.’” County of Dallas v. Sempe, 151 S.W.3d 291, 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004 pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (quoting Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 376 , 110 S. Ct. 2430 , 110 L.

2015See Davis v. City of San Antonio, 752 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex. 1988) (rejecting the contention that a trial court “lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim for damages outside of the legislature’s waiver of sovereign immunity” and holding immunity from liability for damages is waived if not pled); cf. Texas Comm’n on Human Rights v. Morrison, 346 S.W.3d 838, 850 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (holding the assertion of sovereign immunity against a claim for damages above a statutory damages cap was an affirmative defense of immunity from liability, not a jurisdictional challenge), reversed on other grounds, 38

2015See Davis v. City of San Antonio, 752 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex. 1988) (rejecting the contention that a trial court “lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim for damages outside of the legislature’s waiver of sovereign immunity” and holding immunity from liability for damages is waived if not pled); cf. Texas Comm’n on Human Rights v. Morrison, 346 S.W.3d 838, 850 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (holding the assertion of sovereign immunity against a claim for damages above a statutory damages cap was an affirmative defense of immunity from liability, not a jurisdictional challenge), reversed on other grounds, 38

2007See Howlett v. Rose , 496 U.S. 356, 375-76 (1990) (citing Owen v. City of Independence , 445 U.S. 622 , 647 n.30 (1980)) ("Municipal defenses-including an assertion of sovereign immunity-to a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law"); Campos v. Nueces County , 162 S.W.3d 778, 785 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2005, pet. denied).

2000See Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 , 1999 Tex. LEXIS 117, at *6 (Tex.1999).

2000See Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 , 1999 Tex. LEXIS 117, at *6 (Tex.1999).

1996City of Columbus v. Barnstone, 921 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, n.w.h.); Alvarado, 900 S.W.2d at 878-79 ; see Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(5) (Vernon Supp. 1996).