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.
24 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Apodacagreen2 sentences2005Ctr. v. Apodaca, 876 S.W.2d 402, 411 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, pet. denied) (implied omitted finding of notice as one element of negligence action under Texas Tort Claims Act claim). 2005Ctr. v. Apodaca , 876 S.W.2d 402, 411 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, pet. denied) (implied omitted finding of notice as one element of negligence action under Texas Tort Claims Act claim). | 3 | 3 |
City of Dallas v. Hillisgreen2 sentences2024For support, the City 19 invokes a number of cases in which the government employee’s use or operation of the vehicle “did no more than furnish the condition that made” the injury “possible.” See, e.g., City of Dallas v. Hillis, 308 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied); City of Sugarland v. Ballard, 174 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); City of Pharr v. Herrera, No. 13-15-00133-CV, 2017 WL 929483 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). 2015See Ryder, 453 S.W.3d at 929-30 ; Whitley, 104 S.W.3d at 542-43 (holding that government driver’s failure to supervise the public, not the use of the bus, caused passenger’s injury, and thus conduct did not fall within waiver of immunity); Hillis, 308 S.W.3d at 535 (“[officer’s] use of his patrol car was too attenuated from [fleeing individual’s] conduct for that use to constitute a cause of [the individual’s] injuries”); Ballard, 174 S.W.3d at 266 (no nexus with use of car, given suspect’s decision to flee into oncoming traffic); Townsend, 2006 WL 2345922 , at *1 (no waiver for failing to con | 2 | 3 |
City of Sugarland v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2024For support, the City 19 invokes a number of cases in which the government employee’s use or operation of the vehicle “did no more than furnish the condition that made” the injury “possible.” See, e.g., City of Dallas v. Hillis, 308 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied); City of Sugarland v. Ballard, 174 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); City of Pharr v. Herrera, No. 13-15-00133-CV, 2017 WL 929483 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). 2015See Ryder, 453 S.W.3d at 929-30 ; Whitley, 104 S.W.3d at 542-43 (holding that government driver’s failure to supervise the public, not the use of the bus, caused passenger’s injury, and thus conduct did not fall within waiver of immunity); Hillis, 308 S.W.3d at 535 (“[officer’s] use of his patrol car was too attenuated from [fleeing individual’s] conduct for that use to constitute a cause of [the individual’s] injuries”); Ballard, 174 S.W.3d at 266 (no nexus with use of car, given suspect’s decision to flee into oncoming traffic); Townsend, 2006 WL 2345922 , at *1 (no waiver for failing to con | 2 | 3 |
Dallas County v. Poseygreen2 sentences2016See Dallas County v. Posey, 290 S.W.3d 869, 872 (Tex. 2009) (the alleged condition must actually have caused the injury to invoke the Tort Claims Act’s immunity waiver; mere involvement of property is not sufficient). 2016See Dallas County v. Posey, 290 S.W.3d 869, 872 (Tex.2009) (the alleged condition must actually have caused the injury to invoke the Tort Claims Act’s immunity waiver; mere involvement of property is. not sufficient). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2015Id. at 228. 8 Governmental Immunity and Waiver through the Tort Claims Act The doctrine of governmental immunity bars suits against the state and its governmental units unless the state consents by waiving immunity. 2015Id. at 228. 8 Governmental Immunity and Waiver through the Tort Claims Act The doctrine of governmental immunity bars suits against the state and its governmental units unless the state consents by waiving immunity. | 2 | 2 |
Texas Adjutant General's Office v. Michele Ngakouegreen2 sentences2015Tex. Adjutant General’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex. 2013). 2015Tex. Adjutant General’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex. 2013). | 2 | 2 |
Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Fayette County, Texasgreen2 sentences2015See Ryder, 453 S.W.3d at 929–30; Whitley, 104 S.W.3d at 542–43 (holding that government driver’s failure to supervise the public, not the use of the bus, caused passenger’s 18 injury, and thus conduct did not fall within waiver of immunity); Hillis, 308 S.W.3d at 535 (“[officer’s] use of his patrol car was too attenuated from [fleeing individual’s] conduct for that use to constitute a cause of [the individual’s] injuries”); Ballard, 174 S.W.3d at 266 (no nexus with use of car, given suspect’s decision to flee into oncoming traffic); Townsend, 2006 WL 2345922 , at *1 (no waiver for failing to c 2015See Ryder, 453 S.W.3d at 929-30 ; Whitley, 104 S.W.3d at 542-43 (holding that government driver’s failure to supervise the public, not the use of the bus, caused passenger’s injury, and thus conduct did not fall within waiver of immunity); Hillis, 308 S.W.3d at 535 (“[officer’s] use of his patrol car was too attenuated from [fleeing individual’s] conduct for that use to constitute a cause of [the individual’s] injuries”); Ballard, 174 S.W.3d at 266 (no nexus with use of car, given suspect’s decision to flee into oncoming traffic); Townsend, 2006 WL 2345922 , at *1 (no waiver for failing to con | 2 | 2 |
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitleygreen2 sentences2015See Ryder, 453 S.W.3d at 929–30; Whitley, 104 S.W.3d at 542–43 (holding that government driver’s failure to supervise the public, not the use of the bus, caused passenger’s 18 injury, and thus conduct did not fall within waiver of immunity); Hillis, 308 S.W.3d at 535 (“[officer’s] use of his patrol car was too attenuated from [fleeing individual’s] conduct for that use to constitute a cause of [the individual’s] injuries”); Ballard, 174 S.W.3d at 266 (no nexus with use of car, given suspect’s decision to flee into oncoming traffic); Townsend, 2006 WL 2345922 , at *1 (no waiver for failing to c 2015See Ryder, 453 S.W.3d at 929-30 ; Whitley, 104 S.W.3d at 542-43 (holding that government driver’s failure to supervise the public, not the use of the bus, caused passenger’s injury, and thus conduct did not fall within waiver of immunity); Hillis, 308 S.W.3d at 535 (“[officer’s] use of his patrol car was too attenuated from [fleeing individual’s] conduct for that use to constitute a cause of [the individual’s] injuries”); Ballard, 174 S.W.3d at 266 (no nexus with use of car, given suspect’s decision to flee into oncoming traffic); Townsend, 2006 WL 2345922 , at *1 (no waiver for failing to con | 1 | 2 |
the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Lance McKenzie, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Courtney McKenzie-thue (Deceased), and Deborah Diver, Individually and as Next Friend of J.O., a Minorgreen1 sentence2020Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. McKenzie, 578 S.W.3d 506, 513 (Tex. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shumakegreen1 sentence2015Id. § 75.002; State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 281 (Tex. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. City of Dallasgreen1 sentence2014Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.021(1)(B); see *759 also Perez v. City of Dallas, 180 S.W.3d 906, 910 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (Tort Claims Act immunity waived “if the governmental unit would be liable to the claimant according to Texas law if it were a private person” under section 101.021(2)). | 1 | 1 |
Stinnett v. Williamson County Sheriff's Departmentgreen1 sentence2008Tex. State Univ., 895 S.W.2d 469, 473 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no pet.) (holding Tort Claims Act claim barred when conduct was also actionable under the CHRA), and Stinnett v. Williamson County Sheriffs Dep’t, 858 S.W.2d 573, 576-77 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, writ denied) (holding that the plaintiffs retaliation claim could proceed only under the CHRA and not under the Whistleblower Act), with Lee v. Palo Pinto County, 966 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1998, pet. denied) (distinguishing Stinnett’s holding on the ground that the claimant in that case had complained of no wrongdoing other than vi | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Palo Pinto Countygreen1 sentence2008Tex. State Univ., 895 S.W.2d 469, 473 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no pet.) (holding Tort Claims Act claim barred when conduct was also actionable under the CHRA), and Stinnett v. Williamson County Sheriffs Dep’t, 858 S.W.2d 573, 576-77 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, writ denied) (holding that the plaintiffs retaliation claim could proceed only under the CHRA and not under the Whistleblower Act), with Lee v. Palo Pinto County, 966 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1998, pet. denied) (distinguishing Stinnett’s holding on the ground that the claimant in that case had complained of no wrongdoing other than vi | 1 | 1 |
Vincent v. West Texas State Universitygreen1 sentence2008Tex. State Univ., 895 S.W.2d 469, 473 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no pet.) (holding Tort Claims Act claim barred when conduct was also actionable under the CHRA), and Stinnett v. Williamson County Sheriffs Dep’t, 858 S.W.2d 573, 576-77 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, writ denied) (holding that the plaintiffs retaliation claim could proceed only under the CHRA and not under the Whistleblower Act), with Lee v. Palo Pinto County, 966 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1998, pet. denied) (distinguishing Stinnett’s holding on the ground that the claimant in that case had complained of no wrongdoing other than vi | 1 | 1 |
Limon v. City of Balcones Heightsgreen1 sentence2007See also Limon v. City of Balcones Heights, 485 F.Supp.2d 751, 756-57 (W.D.Tex.2007) (plaintiff raped by police officer in patrol car; court granted city’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s Texas Tort Claims Act claim). 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Bland Independent School District v. Bluegreen1 sentence2001See Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 549 (holding that trial court is required to consider relevant evidence in support of plea to jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McConnell v. Southside Independent School District
green
1 sentence2025Id., 704 S.W.3d at 448. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.
green
1 sentence2022The Supreme Court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s exception for liability for the discretionary acts of government officials displaced state tort law, but only in circumstances in which the contractor could not 48 See 487 U.S. at 511–12. 17 comply with both its contractual obligations to the federal government and with relevant state tort law. 49 The Court left intact state-prescribed duties of care that presented no conflict: If, for example, the United States contracts for the purchase and installation of an air conditioning-unit, specifying the cooling capacity but not the precise m | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Texas Bay Cherry Hill, L.P. v. City of Fort Worth
green
1 sentence2017Thus, even if the City did not have the legal right to control all of Fryday's work as a City Building Official performing building inspection services, that does not exclude him from the definition of "employee." See Tex. Bay Cherry Hill, L.P. v. City of Fort Worth , 257 S.W.3d 379 , 398 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (concluding that a city council member was paid by the city and was a city "employee" for purposes of Tort Claims Act immunity, even if the city did not have the legal right to control all of council member's work and she was an elected official). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Crumrine v. Harte-Hanks Television, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011Dist., No. 03-02-00798-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4725 , at *12 (Tex. App.–Austin May 27, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that the plaintiffs filed their second lawsuit in state court seventy-nine days after a federal court dismissed their first lawsuit; therefore, the plaintiffs‘ defamation cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, even with the benefit of section 16.064‘s tolling provision); Martinez v. City of Brownsville, No. 13-00-00425-CV, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 5 6131 , at *11 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Aug. 31, 2001, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (setting out that the plaintiff | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Holder v. Mellon Mortgage Co.
green
1 sentence2007Holder, 954 S.W.2d at 807 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brown v. Texas Department of Transportation & Cameron County
green
2 sentences2002The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that (1) maintaining the causeway’s streetlights was not a discretionary function exempt from the Tort Claims Act’s immunity waiver, and (2) the plaintiffs’ allegations and the pertinent jurisdictional evidence were sufficient to raise a premises-defect claim under the Act. 80 S.W.3d 594 . 2002The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that (1) maintaining the causeway's streetlights was not a discretionary function exempt from the Tort Claims Act's immunity waiver, and (2) the plaintiffs' allegations and the pertinent jurisdictional evidence were sufficient to raise a premises-defect claim under the Act. 80 S.W.3d 594 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Driskill v. State
green
1 sentence1990Indeed, Driskill can be understood to require that immunity be limited only to "those acts or omissions which constitute implementation of policy decisions on how to collect or assess taxes." Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Madisonville Independent School District v. Kyle
green
2 sentences1987Appellant’s reliance on Madisonville Independent School District v. Kyle, 658 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.1983) is misplaced. 1987Appellant’s reliance on Madisonville Independent School District v. Kyle, 658 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.1983) is misplaced. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.