14 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Austin Nat. Bank v. Sheppardgreen2 sentences2016This is the case because “revenue generated from a tax determined to be illegal should not be treated as property of the State or municipality to which the principles of sovereign immunity apply, and an illegally collected fee should be refunded if paid as a result of fraud, mutual mistake of fact, or duress, without respect to waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. (first citing Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 822 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, writ denied), then citing Austin Nat'l Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272 , 71 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934)). 2012See Camacho, 954 S.W.2d at 822 ; Austin Nat’l Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272 , 71 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934). | 6 | 6 |
Camacho v. Samaniegogreen2 sentences2016This is the case because “revenue generated from a tax determined to be illegal should not be treated as property of the State or municipality to which the principles of sovereign immunity apply, and an illegally collected fee should be refunded if paid as a result of fraud, mutual mistake of fact, or duress, without respect to waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. (first citing Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 822 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, writ denied), then citing Austin Nat'l Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272 , 71 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934)). 2012See Camacho, 954 S.W.2d at 822 ; Austin Nat’l Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272 , 71 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934). | 6 | 6 |
Nivens v. City of League Citygreen2 sentences2017Consent is unnecessary because “revenue .generated from, a tax determined to be illegal should not be treated as property of the State or municipality to which the principles of sovereign immunity apply, and an illegally collected fee should be refunded if paid as a result, of ... duress, without respect to waiver of sovereign immunity.” Nivens v. City of League City, 245 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). 2010See Nivens, 245 S.W.3d at 474 (“The revenue generated from a tax determined to be illegal should not be treated as property of the State or municipality to which the principles of sovereign immunity apply....”). | 3 | 3 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999) (trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims against State, absent State’s consent to such suit). 2009See, e.g., Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones , 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999) ( trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims against State, absent State's consent to such suit). | 2 | 2 |
Beers Ex Rel. Platenius v. Arkansasgreen1 sentence2026A Sovereign immunity is “an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations.” Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex. 3 2006) (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 529 (1857)). | 1 | 1 |
Tooke v. City of Mexiagreen1 sentence2026A Sovereign immunity is “an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations.” Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex. 3 2006) (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 529 (1857)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Austin National Bank v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences2016This is the case because “revenue generated from a tax determined to be illegal should not be treated as property of the State or municipality to which the principles of sovereign immunity apply, and an illegally collected fee should be refunded if paid as a result of fraud, mutual mistake of fact, or duress, without respect to waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. (first citing Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 822 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, writ denied), then citing Austin Nat'l Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272 , 71 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934)). 2012See Camacho, 954 S.W.2d at 822 ; Austin Nat’l Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272 , 71 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934). | 5 | 2007–2016 |
Dallas County Community College District v. Bolton
green
1 sentence2016This is the case because “revenue generated from a tax determined to be illegal should not be treated as property of the State or municipality to which the principles of sovereign immunity apply, and an illegally collected fee should be refunded if paid as a result of fraud, mutual mistake of fact, or duress, without respect to waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. (first citing Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 822 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, writ denied), then citing Austin Nat'l Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272 , 71 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 119-20 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
green
1 sentence1978Id. at 456 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.