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.
20 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Dallas v. Albertgreen2 sentences2025We hold neither today. in City of Dallas v. Albert, we characterized our decision Instead, we hold that the Reata rule—under which the in Reata as one “conclud[ing] that immunity from suit state, by participating in certain litigation, steps outside the was abrogated to a limited degree.” 354 S.W.3d at 379 sphere of protection that common-law immunity from suit © 2025 Thomson Reuters. 2025We hold neither today. in City of Dallas v. Albert, we characterized our decision Instead, we hold that the Reata rule—under which the in Reata as one “conclud[ing] that immunity from suit state, by participating in certain litigation, steps outside the was abrogated to a limited degree.” 354 S.W.3d at 379 sphere of protection that common-law immunity from suit © 2025 Thomson Reuters. | 4 | 5 |
Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The Supreme Court held that “the Reata rule . . . never applies when the state initiates litigation to enforce a substantive prohibition against unlaw- ful conduct by imposing a monetary penalty.” Id. at 507 (emphasis added). 2025The Supreme Court held that “the Reata rule . . . never applies when the state initiates litigation to enforce a substantive prohibition against unlaw- ful conduct by imposing a monetary penalty.” Id. at 507 (emphasis added). | 4 | 4 |
City of Midland v. Goerlitzgreen2 sentences2008It claims that "[i]n several cases, the supreme court has characterized the Reata rule as a situation in which immunity simply does not exist , rather than a situation in which governmental immunity is waived ." Id. (citing City of Midland v. Goerlitz , 201 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. 2006); City of Houston v. United Water Servs. , 201 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. 2006); Metro. 2008It claims that "[i]n several cases, the supreme court has characterized the Reata rule as a situation in which immunity simply does not exist , rather than a situation in which governmental immunity is waived ." Id. (citing City of Midland v. Goerlitz , 201 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. 2006); City of Houston v. United Water Servs. , 201 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. 2006); Metro. | 3 | 3 |
City of Houston v. United Water Services, Inc.green2 sentences2008It claims that "[i]n several cases, the supreme court has characterized the Reata rule as a situation in which immunity simply does not exist , rather than a situation in which governmental immunity is waived ." Id. (citing City of Midland v. Goerlitz , 201 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. 2006); City of Houston v. United Water Servs. , 201 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. 2006); Metro. 2008It claims that "[i]n several cases, the supreme court has characterized the Reata rule as a situation in which immunity simply does not exist , rather than a situation in which governmental immunity is waived ." Id. (citing City of Midland v. Goerlitz , 201 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. 2006); City of Houston v. United Water Servs. , 201 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. 2006); Metro. | 3 | 3 |
Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2018See Humble Oil , 169 S.W.2d at 709-10 ; see also Reata , 197 S.W.3d at 371 (noting approvingly that Humble Oil "acknowledged that in certain circumstances , a defendant would be entitled to assert a claim against the State" (emphasis added) ). 2018See Humble Oil, 169 S.W.2d at 709–10; see also Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 371 (noting approvingly that Humble Oil “acknowledged that in certain circumstances, a defendant would be entitled to assert a claim against the State” (emphasis added)). | 2 | 7 |
Anderson v. State ex rel. Allredgreen2 sentences2025See id. (first discussing See id. at 377 (“[The City's decision] to file suit for damages encompassed a decision to leave its sphere of Anderson, 62 S.W.2d 107 ; then citing State v. Humble immunity from suit for claims against it which are germane Oil & Ref. 2018See id. (first discussing Anderson, 62 S.W.2d 107 ; then citing State v. Humble Oil & Ref. | 2 | 2 |
Southwest Contract Purchase Corp. v. McGeegreen2 sentences2025See id. (first discussing See id. at 377 (“[The City's decision] to file suit for damages encompassed a decision to leave its sphere of Anderson, 62 S.W.2d 107 ; then citing State v. Humble immunity from suit for claims against it which are germane Oil & Ref. 2018See id. (first discussing Anderson, 62 S.W.2d 107 ; then citing State v. Humble Oil & Ref. | 2 | 2 |
Charles Manbeck v. Austin Independent School Districtgreen2 sentences2018Similarly, in City of Galveston v. State , just one year after Reata and Tooke v. City of Mexia , we noted that "we recently held in Reata ... that immunity does not exist when a government affirmatively files suit for money damages ." City of Galveston v. State , 217 S.W.3d 466 , 471 (Tex. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Manbeck , 381 S.W.3d at 532 ("In Reata [,] ... we held that when a governmental entity asserts an affirmative claim for monetary damages against its opponent, [the Reata rule applies]." (emphasis added) ). 2018Similarly, in City of Galveston v. State , just one year after Reata and Tooke v. City of Mexia , we noted that "we recently held in Reata ... that immunity does not exist when a government affirmatively files suit for money damages ." City of Galveston v. State , 217 S.W.3d 466 , 471 (Tex. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Manbeck , 381 S.W.3d at 532 ("In Reata [,] ... we held that when a governmental entity asserts an affirmative claim for monetary damages against its opponent, [the Reata rule applies]." (emphasis added) ). | 2 | 2 |
Sweeny Community Hospital v. Mendezgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Sweeny Cmty. Hosp. v. Mendez, 226 S.W.3d 584 , 592–93 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (by filing affirmative counterclaims, state hospital waived immunity for counterclaims for tortious interference, defamation, and other torts). 18 • January 11, 2011 – Carowest files First Amended Petition against City adding breach of contract claims, Supp. 2015Compare Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 370–71, 374 (applying Reata to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of contract), City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 432 S.W.3d 501 , 510–11, 527 (Tex. App—Austin 2014, no pet.) (same), City of San Antonio v. KGME, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 870, 873 , 877–78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (same), Sweeny Cmty. Hosp. v. Mendez, 226 S.W.3d 584, 586, 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same), Harris Cnty. v. Luna-Prudencio, 294 S.W.3d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (applying Reata exception t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.green2 sentences2018See Humble Oil , 169 S.W.2d at 709-10 ; see also Reata , 197 S.W.3d at 371 (noting approvingly that Humble Oil "acknowledged that in certain circumstances , a defendant would be entitled to assert a claim against the State" (emphasis added) ). 2018See Humble Oil, 169 S.W.2d at 709–10; see also Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 371 (noting approvingly that Humble Oil “acknowledged that in certain circumstances, a defendant would be entitled to assert a claim against the State” (emphasis added)). | 2 | 2 |
City of New Braunfels, Texas v. Carowest Land, Ltd.green2 sentences2017See ids="8409239" index="17" url="https://cite. case.law/sw3d/197/371/#p373">id. ; see also City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd. , 432 S.W.3d 501 , 522 (Tex. App.-Austin 2014, no pet.) (characterizing Reata rule as common law modification of immunity). 2015Compare Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 370–71, 374 (applying Reata to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of contract), City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 432 S.W.3d 501 , 510–11, 527 (Tex. App—Austin 2014, no pet.) (same), City of San Antonio v. KGME, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 870, 873 , 877–78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (same), Sweeny Cmty. Hosp. v. Mendez, 226 S.W.3d 584, 586, 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same), Harris Cnty. v. Luna-Prudencio, 294 S.W.3d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (applying Reata exception t | 2 | 2 |
City of Galveston v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Similarly, in City of Galveston v. State , just one year after Reata and Tooke v. City of Mexia , we noted that "we recently held in Reata ... that immunity does not exist when a government affirmatively files suit for money damages ." City of Galveston v. State , 217 S.W.3d 466 , 471 (Tex. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Manbeck , 381 S.W.3d at 532 ("In Reata [,] ... we held that when a governmental entity asserts an affirmative claim for monetary damages against its opponent, [the Reata rule applies]." (emphasis added) ). 2018Similarly, in City of Galveston v. State , just one year after Reata and Tooke v. City of Mexia , we noted that "we recently held in Reata ... that immunity does not exist when a government affirmatively files suit for money damages ." City of Galveston v. State , 217 S.W.3d 466 , 471 (Tex. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Manbeck , 381 S.W.3d at 532 ("In Reata [,] ... we held that when a governmental entity asserts an affirmative claim for monetary damages against its opponent, [the Reata rule applies]." (emphasis added) ). | 1 | 2 |
McIver v. Gloriagreen2 sentences2025But Humble Oil holds precisely the opposite. see also Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 377 (“[T]he City does not have immunity from Reata's claims to the limited extent See 169 S.W.2d at 710 (“[T]axes due [to] the State cannot we have explained ....” (emphasis added) ). 2025But Humble Oil holds precisely the opposite. see also Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 377 (“[T]he City does not have immunity from Reata's claims to the limited extent See 169 S.W.2d at 710 (“[T]axes due [to] the State cannot we have explained ....” (emphasis added) ). | 1 | 1 |
Valadez v. Avitiagreen2 sentences2021Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2007, no pet.). 2021Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2007, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
City of McKinney v. Hank's Restaurant Group, L.P.green2 sentences2018Grp. , 412 S.W.3d at 116 (similarly concluding that "[s]ince Reata , the supreme court has indicated that the Reata rule is limited to offsetting counterclaims for monetary relief," and that "a governmental entity's affirmative claim for declaratory relief does not have any effect on the entity's immunity from counterclaims for declaratory relief"). 2018Grp. , 412 S.W.3d at 116 (similarly concluding that "[s]ince Reata , the supreme court has indicated that the Reata rule is limited to offsetting counterclaims for monetary relief," and that "a governmental entity's affirmative claim for declaratory relief does not have any effect on the entity's immunity from counterclaims for declaratory relief"). | 1 | 1 |
Procom Energy, L.L.A. v. Roachgreen2 sentences2018Because if the Reata rule applies to every “monetary recovery,” see 197 16 S.W.3d at 377, then the Reata rule applies anytime the state sues to collect taxes. 2018Because if the Reata rule applies to every “monetary recovery,” see 197 16 S.W.3d at 377, then the Reata rule applies anytime the state sues to collect taxes. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Lutzgreen2 sentences2016Cf. Smith v. Lutz, 149 S.W.3d 752, 758 (Tex.App.–Austin 2004, no pet.) (since IT-Davy, this Court has only recognized a waiver of immunity in contract cases when the State has first sued the contracting party). 2016Cf. Smith v. Lutz, 149 S.W.3d 752, 758 (Tex.App.–Austin 2004, no pet.) (since IT-Davy, this Court has only recognized a waiver of immunity in contract cases when the State has first sued the contracting party). | 1 | 1 |
City of San Antonio v. KGME, INC.green2 sentences2015Compare Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 370–71, 374 (applying Reata to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of contract), City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 432 S.W.3d 501 , 510–11, 527 (Tex. App—Austin 2014, no pet.) (same), City of San Antonio v. KGME, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 870, 873 , 877–78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (same), Sweeny Cmty. Hosp. v. Mendez, 226 S.W.3d 584, 586, 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same), Harris Cnty. v. Luna-Prudencio, 294 S.W.3d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (applying Reata exception t 2015Compare Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 370–71, 374 (applying Reata to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of contract), City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 432 S.W.3d 501 , 510–11, 527 (Tex. App—Austin 2014, no pet.) (same), City of San Antonio v. KGME, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 870, 873 , 877–78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (same), Sweeny Cmty. Hosp. v. Mendez, 226 S.W.3d 584, 586, 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same), Harris Cnty. v. Luna-Prudencio, 294 S.W.3d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (applying Reata exception t | 1 | 1 |
City of Dallas v. Redbird Development Corp.green2 sentences2015Corp., 143 S.W.3d 375, 378, 383 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.) (apply- ing Reata exception to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of lease), with Waller County v. Simmons, No. 01-07-00180- - 30 - CV, 2007 WL 3038420 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 18, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that although the governmental entity was seeking monetary relief, the Reata exception did not apply because “a suit to recover delinquent taxes is, by its very nature, not a claim for mone- tary damages, but rather a foreclosure of a lien”). 2015Corp., 143 S.W.3d 375, 378, 383 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.) (apply- ing Reata exception to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of lease), with Waller County v. Simmons, No. 01-07-00180- - 30 - CV, 2007 WL 3038420 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 18, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that although the governmental entity was seeking monetary relief, the Reata exception did not apply because “a suit to recover delinquent taxes is, by its very nature, not a claim for mone- tary damages, but rather a foreclosure of a lien”). | 1 | 1 |
Harris County v. Luna-Prudenciogreen2 sentences2015Compare Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 370–71, 374 (applying Reata to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of contract), City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 432 S.W.3d 501 , 510–11, 527 (Tex. App—Austin 2014, no pet.) (same), City of San Antonio v. KGME, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 870, 873 , 877–78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (same), Sweeny Cmty. Hosp. v. Mendez, 226 S.W.3d 584, 586, 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same), Harris Cnty. v. Luna-Prudencio, 294 S.W.3d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (applying Reata exception t 2015Compare Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 370–71, 374 (applying Reata to allow claims against a governmental entity that as- serted breach of contract), City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 432 S.W.3d 501 , 510–11, 527 (Tex. App—Austin 2014, no pet.) (same), City of San Antonio v. KGME, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 870, 873 , 877–78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (same), Sweeny Cmty. Hosp. v. Mendez, 226 S.W.3d 584, 586, 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same), Harris Cnty. v. Luna-Prudencio, 294 S.W.3d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (applying Reata exception t | 1 | 1 |
City of Irving v. Inform Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2006See, e.g., Martin, 140 S.W.Bd at 926 (City waived governmental immunity by filing counterclaim for affirmative relief); City of Irving v. Inform Constr., Inc., 143 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. filed) (City waived immunity by filing counterclaim requesting affirmative relief). 2006See, e.g., Martin, 140 S.W.Bd at 926 (City waived governmental immunity by filing counterclaim for affirmative relief); City of Irving v. Inform Constr., Inc., 143 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. filed) (City waived immunity by filing counterclaim requesting affirmative relief). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nazari v. State
green
2 sentences2018The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Reata rule did not apply because (1) "the civil penalties that the State is seeking against the Dental Groups do not qualify as damages or monetary relief as those terms were used in Reata ," and (2) "when the State pursues an enforcement action under the [Medicaid Fraud Act], it is not acting as an ordinary or private litigant as described in Reata but is instead acting in its sovereign capacity and exercising its police powers." 497 S.W.3d 169 , 181 (Tex. App.-Austin 2016) (emphasis removed). 2018The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Reata rule did not apply because (1) "the civil penalties that the State is seeking against the Dental Groups do not qualify as damages or monetary relief as those terms were used in Reata ," and (2) "when the State pursues an enforcement action under the [Medicaid Fraud Act], it is not acting as an ordinary or private litigant as described in Reata but is instead acting in its sovereign capacity and exercising its police powers." 497 S.W.3d 169 , 181 (Tex. App.-Austin 2016) (emphasis removed). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A Acs State Healthcare, Llc
green
2 sentences2018Since the state's action is punitive rather than compensatory, see id. at 527 , the Reata rule does not apply here. 2018Since the state's action is punitive rather than compensatory, see id. at 527 , the Reata rule does not apply here. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
green
2 sentences2015Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the mechanism underlying that concern, noting that a conduct-based exception to immunity would “force the State to expend its resources to litigate the waiver-by-conduct issue before enjoying sovereign immunity’s protections—and this would defeat many of the doctrine’s underlying policies.” IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 857 . 2015Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the mechanism underlying that concern, noting that a conduct-based exception to immunity would “force the State to expend its resources to litigate the waiver-by-conduct issue before enjoying sovereign immunity’s protections—and this would defeat many of the doctrine’s underlying policies.” IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 857 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Dallas v. VRC LLC
green
2 sentences2013It relies on Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. McBride, 317 S.W.3d 731 (Tex.2010), and City of Dallas v. VRC LLC, 260 S.W.3d 60 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.), for support. 2013It relies on Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. McBride, 317 S.W.3d 731 (Tex.2010), and City of Dallas v. VRC LLC, 260 S.W.3d 60 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.), for support. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. McBride
green
2 sentences2013It relies on Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. McBride, 317 S.W.3d 731 (Tex.2010), and City of Dallas v. VRC LLC, 260 S.W.3d 60 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.), for support. 2013It relies on Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. McBride, 317 S.W.3d 731 (Tex.2010), and City of Dallas v. VRC LLC, 260 S.W.3d 60 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.), for support. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Tooke v. City of Mexia
green
2 sentences2008It claims that "[i]n several cases, the supreme court has characterized the Reata rule as a situation in which immunity simply does not exist , rather than a situation in which governmental immunity is waived ." Id. (citing City of Midland v. Goerlitz , 201 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. 2006); City of Houston v. United Water Servs. , 201 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. 2006); Metro. 2008It claims that "[i]n several cases, the supreme court has characterized the Reata rule as a situation in which immunity simply does not exist , rather than a situation in which governmental immunity is waived ." Id. (citing City of Midland v. Goerlitz , 201 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. 2006); City of Houston v. United Water Servs. , 201 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. 2006); Metro. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.