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.
19 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKinney v. City of Gainesvillegreen2 sentences2015Shuttle Service, Inc. v. City of Houston, 164 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[M]erely engaging in a governmental function does not automatically waive the City’s City of League City’s Reply Brief No. 01-14-00720-CV 13 sovereign immunity.”); City of Kemah v. Vela, 149 S.W.3d 199, 204 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (“However, this section [101.0215] merely provides a nonexclusive list of governmental functions for which a municipality may be held liable under the Tort Claims Act generally; it does not provide an independent basis for a waive 2013Assuming that the damages arise from a governmental function, “liability must still arise out of one of the specific areas of waiver listed under section 101.021.” Id. (citing City of Houston v. Rushing, 7 S.W.3d 909, 914 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)); McKinney v. City of Gainesville, 814 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (“Whereas if the action engaged in by a municipality is considered to be a governmental function, the TCA does apply, and further analysis under the Act is required to determine a municipality’s potential liability.”). | 4 | 4 |
City of Houston v. Rushinggreen2 sentences2013Assuming that the damages arise from a governmental function, “liability must still arise out of one of the specific areas of waiver listed under section 101.021.” Id. (citing City of Houston v. Rushing, 7 S.W.3d 909, 914 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)); McKinney v. City of Gainesville, 814 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (“Whereas if the action engaged in by a municipality is considered to be a governmental function, the TCA does apply, and further analysis under the Act is required to determine a municipality’s potential liability.”). 2004City of Houston v. Rushing, 7 S.W.3d 909, 914 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). 2 . | 3 | 3 |
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2007See id. 2007See id. | 3 | 3 |
In Re Daisy Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2010See id. (“Merely completing some less-intrusive discovery does not trigger an automatic right to depose the apex official.”). 2010See id. (“Merely completing some less-intrusive discovery does not trigger an automatic right to depose the apex official.”). | 2 | 2 |
City of Kemah v. Velagreen2 sentences2021Gomez-Parra, 198 S.W.3d at 367-68 ; Smith v. City of Galveston, No. 14-05-00926-CV, 2007 WL 1152506 , at *4 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 19, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (for a municipality to be liable for a governmental function, liability must arise out of one of the specific areas of waiver listed under section 101.021 of the TTCA) (citing City of Kemah v. Vela, 149 S.W.3d 199, 204 . n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied)). 2015Shuttle Service, Inc. v. City of Houston, 164 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[M]erely engaging in a governmental function does not automatically waive the City’s City of League City’s Reply Brief No. 01-14-00720-CV 13 sovereign immunity.”); City of Kemah v. Vela, 149 S.W.3d 199, 204 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (“However, this section [101.0215] merely provides a nonexclusive list of governmental functions for which a municipality may be held liable under the Tort Claims Act generally; it does not provide an independent basis for a waive | 1 | 4 |
Whitaker v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Whitaker v. State, 653 S.W.2d 781, 782 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983)(acknowledging a skilled attorney can always find additional topics of inquiry for questioning the jury, and inability to ask all such questions is not necessarily the result of an unreasonable time limitation). | 1 | 1 |
Ethio Express Shuttle Service, Inc. v. City of Houstongreen1 sentence2015Shuttle Service, Inc. v. City of Houston, 164 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[M]erely engaging in a governmental function does not automatically waive the City’s City of League City’s Reply Brief No. 01-14-00720-CV 13 sovereign immunity.”); City of Kemah v. Vela, 149 S.W.3d 199, 204 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (“However, this section [101.0215] merely provides a nonexclusive list of governmental functions for which a municipality may be held liable under the Tort Claims Act generally; it does not provide an independent basis for a waive | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Ablegreen1 sentence2007Section 101.021 waives immunity for performing a governmental function in A three general areas: > use of publicly owned automobiles, premises defects, and injuries arising out of conditions or use of property. = @ Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Able , 35 S.W.3d 608, 611 (Tex. 2000) (quoting Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ. , 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Lowe v. Texas Tech Universitygreen1 sentence2007Section 101.021 waives immunity for performing a governmental function in A three general areas: > use of publicly owned automobiles, premises defects, and injuries arising out of conditions or use of property. = @ Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Able , 35 S.W.3d 608, 611 (Tex. 2000) (quoting Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ. , 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences1984Hughes v. State, 562 S.W.2d 857, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 903 , 99 S.Ct. 268 , 58 L.Ed.2d 250 (1978). 1984Hughes v. State, 562 S.W.2d 857, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 903 , 99 S.Ct. 268 , 58 L.Ed.2d 250 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCarter v. State
green
2 sentences2003McCarter, 837 S.W.2d at 120 . 2003McCarter , 837 S.W.2d at 120 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Mitchell v. Webb
green
2 sentences1980Although the requirement of privity has been held to be inapplicable in many instances under the DTPA, we note that the areas where such a requirement has been held not to exist are ones where the defendant is a prior grantor in the chain of title, Mitchell v. Webb, 591 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1979, no writ) and Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers, 557 S.W.2d 77 (Tex.1977), or where the defendant is a principal, and not an agent, in a course of dealings where had the dealings run their ultimate course, the resulting situation would have created a contract where the parties wou 1980Webb, 591 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
City of El Paso v. Gomez-Parra
green
1 sentence2021Gomez-Parra, 198 S.W.3d at 367-68 ; Smith v. City of Galveston, No. 14-05-00926-CV, 2007 WL 1152506 , at *4 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 19, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (for a municipality to be liable for a governmental function, liability must arise out of one of the specific areas of waiver listed under section 101.021 of the TTCA) (citing City of Kemah v. Vela, 149 S.W.3d 199, 204 . n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Manatee Cablevision Corp. v. Florida Power & Light Co.
green
2 sentences1984Hughes v. State, 562 S.W.2d 857, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 903 , 99 S.Ct. 268 , 58 L.Ed.2d 250 (1978). 1984Hughes v. State, 562 S.W.2d 857, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 903 , 99 S.Ct. 268 , 58 L.Ed.2d 250 (1978). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers
green
1 sentence1980Although the requirement of privity has been held to be inapplicable in many instances under the DTPA, we note that the areas where such a requirement has been held not to exist are ones where the defendant is a prior grantor in the chain of title, Mitchell v. Webb, 591 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1979, no writ) and Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers, 557 S.W.2d 77 (Tex.1977), or where the defendant is a principal, and not an agent, in a course of dealings where had the dealings run their ultimate course, the resulting situation would have created a contract where the parties wou | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.