statute waives immunity in Texas

2010The first step in the Taylor analysis is to consider whether the statute waives immunity "beyond doubt." Id.

2010The first step in the Taylor analysis is to consider whether the statute waives immunity “beyond doubt.” Id.

2022“When a statute waives immunity from suit to the extent of liability, it directs the inquiry to the statute’s elements and may require a court to consider those elements at both the jurisdictional and merits stages.” Dohlen, 643 S.W.3d at 392 (citing State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009)).

2019Cf. Zachry Const. Corp. v. Port of Houston Auth. of Harris Cty., 449 S.W.3d 98, 109 (Tex. 2014) (holding that local government code chapter 271 “waives immunity for contract claims that meet certain conditions” and therefore, to invoke waiver under that statute, a plaintiff must raise “a substantial claim that meets” those conditions); State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 881, 883 (Tex. 2009) (holding that “the elements” of an action against a governmental entity under the Texas Whistleblower Act “can be considered as jurisdictional facts” and “can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and l

2005See Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 697-98 ; see also City of Mexia v. Tooke, 115 S.W.3d 618, 623-24 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. granted).

2005See Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 697-98 ; see also City of Mexia v. Tooke, 115 S.W.3d 618, 623-24 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. granted).

2013Id.

2012Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 838 (Tex. 2010).

2021See Tex. Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004).

2009See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex.2004); Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 696-97 (Tex.2003).

2026“The statute waives immunity from suit for certain contract claims[.]” Id.

2010Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320, 327 (Tex.2006) (quotations omitted). 7 The statute waives immunity from suit for certain contract claims: “A local governmental entity that is authorized by statute or the constitution to enter into a contract and that enters into a contract subject to this subchapter waives sovereign immunity to suit for the purpose of adjudicating a claim for breach of the contract....” Tex. Loc.

2026But the State “cannot be sued without its consent, and then only in the manner, place, and court or courts designated.” Isbell, 94 S.W.2d at 424 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also City of Madisonville v. Sims, 620 S.W.3d 375 , 379 (Tex. 2020) (explaining that even where a statute waives immunity, “strict compliance with the [statute’s] procedural requirements is required to bring a claim”).

2026But the State “cannot be sued without its consent, and then only in the manner, place, and court or courts designated.” Isbell, 94 S.W.2d at 424 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also City of Madisonville v. Sims, 620 S.W.3d 375 , 379 (Tex. 2020) (explaining that even where a statute waives immunity, “strict compliance with the [statute’s] procedural requirements is required to bring a claim”).

2019Cf. Zachry Const. Corp. v. Port of Houston Auth. of Harris Cty., 449 S.W.3d 98, 109 (Tex. 2014) (holding that local government code chapter 271 “waives immunity for contract claims that meet certain conditions” and therefore, to invoke waiver under that statute, a plaintiff must raise “a substantial claim that meets” those conditions); State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 881, 883 (Tex. 2009) (holding that “the elements” of an action against a governmental entity under the Texas Whistleblower Act “can be considered as jurisdictional facts” and “can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and l

2014See Texas Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726, 750 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. filed) (observing that while this distinction might be relevant where jurisdiction rests solely upon the ultra-vires exception to sovereign immunity, it has less significance where a statute waives immunity so as to permit claims directly against the State or its agencies). 15 (A) in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision; (B) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (C) made through unlawful procedure; (D) affected by other error of law; (E) not reasonably supported by sub

2014Quality, 351 S.W.3d 532 , 548-49 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. denied). 34 See Texas Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 , 452- 53 (Tex. 1984). 35 Slay, 351 S.W.3d at 549. 36 See Texas Dep’t of Pub.

2014Quality, 351 S.W.3d 532 , 548-49 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. denied). 34 See Texas Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 , 452- 53 (Tex. 1984). 35 Slay, 351 S.W.3d at 549. 36 See Texas Dep’t of Pub.