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.
14 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, Texasgreen2 sentences2024“Political subdivisions of the state—such as counties, municipalities, and school districts—share in the state’s inherent immunity.” Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427 , 429–30 (Tex. 2016). 2020First, the legislature codified its pro-arbitration public policy stance and recognized an array of arbitration procedures. 23 It later applied these procedures to some government disputes, 24 encouraging local governments to “develop and use alternative dispute resolution procedures” consistent with statutorily-recognized practices. 25 Second, the legislature 21 See Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427 , 429–30 (Tex. 2016) (“Political subdivisions of the state . . . share in the state’s inherent immunity.”). 22 Tex. Nat. | 4 | 6 |
Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equipmentgreen2 sentences2008See Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630 ; Tex.R. 2008See Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630 ; Tex. R. | 3 | 3 |
Tooke v. City of Mexiagreen2 sentences2020We have long held that “[p]olitical subdivisions of the state—such as counties, municipalities, and school districts—share in the state’s inherent immunity.”35 These entities “represent no sovereignty 31 Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Tex. 2006). 32 Brown & Gay, 461 S.W.3d at 121 . 33 Reata Constr. 2020Sovereign immunity is a common-law doctrine, “initially developed without any legislative or constitutional enactment.”17 It therefore “remains the judiciary’s responsibility to define the boundaries of the common-law doctrine and to determine under what circumstances sovereign immunity exists in the first instance.”18 15 Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Tex. 2006) (“In Texas, governmental immunity has two components: immunity from liability, which bars enforcement of a judgment against a governmental entity, and immunity from suit, which bars suit against the entity altogether.” ( | 2 | 2 |
Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallasgreen1 sentence2020Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 375 (Tex. 2006). 34 Brown & Gay, 461 S.W.3d at 122 ; see also Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davygreen1 sentence2016Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex. 2002). 2 Political subdivisions of the *430 state — such as counties, municipalities, and school districts — share in the state’s inherent immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Williams v. State , 675 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Miles v. Royal Indemnity Co.green1 sentence1995See Miles v. Royal Indemnity Co., 589 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Brownsville Fabrics, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivares
green
2 sentences2020We have long held that “[p]olitical subdivisions of the state—such as counties, municipalities, and school districts—share in the state’s inherent immunity.”35 These entities “represent no sovereignty 31 Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Tex. 2006). 32 Brown & Gay, 461 S.W.3d at 121 . 33 Reata Constr. 2020Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 375 (Tex. 2006). 34 Brown & Gay, 461 S.W.3d at 122 ; see also Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Houston Electric Co. v. Mayor Etc., City
neutral
1 sentence1932In the second place, this having been an application for a temporary injunction, appellants were not entitled to the aid of any reasonable intendments that might otherwise have been given their averments, under the rule as thus stated by this court in Houston Electric Company v. City of Houston, 212 S. W. 198 , at page 199: “The averments of the bill by which so drastic a remedy is asked, contrary to the rule in ordinary actions, will be taken most strongly against the applicant, and must negative any reasonable inference from the facts stated that he may not be entitled to the recovery sought | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.
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.