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.
92 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2025 10 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 Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2022Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225-26 ; see also City of El Paso v. Waterblasting Techs., Inc., 491 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity challenges a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction). 2017Gay v. City of Wichita Falls, 457 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (citing Texas Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004)); see also City of El Paso v. Waterblasting Techs., Inc., 491 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity challenges a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction). | 25 | 44 |
State v. Hollandgreen2 sentences2018State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007); Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 225–26 (Tex. 2004). 2018State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007); Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 225–26 (Tex. 2004). | 20 | 21 |
City of Waco v. Kirwangreen2 sentences2022See City of Waco v. Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2009); Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 225–26 (Tex. 2004). 2021Standard of Review “A plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity is a challenge to the trial court’s subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” City of League City v. LeBlanc, 467 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing City of Waco v. Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2009)). “[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court’s power to decide a case.” Bland Indep. | 8 | 8 |
Harris County, Texas v. Lori Annabgreen2 sentences2023See Harris County v. Annab, 547 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tex. 2018) (explaining that governmental immunity, similar to sovereign immunity, protects political subdivisions of state from suit and liability). 2022See Harris County v. Annab, 547 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tex. 2018) (explaining that governmental immunity, similar to sovereign immunity, protects political subdivisions of state from suit and liability). | 3 | 3 |
City of Houston v. Downstream Environmental, L.L.C.green2 sentences2025City of Houston v. Downstream Env’t, 444 S.W.3d 24, 31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). 2020City of Houston v. Downstream Envtl., 444 S.W.3d 24, 31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Harris County v. Sykesgreen2 sentences2023However, “a party’s right to nonsuit cannot be used to disturb a court’s judgment on the merits of a claim, such as a partial summary judgment against the nonsuiting party.” Villafani, 251 S.W.3d at 469 (citing Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex. 1995)); see Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 , 639—640 (Tex. 2004) (noting that a dismissal following the grant of a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity “constitutes a final determination on the merits of the matter actually decided,” and that “[s]uch a dismissal is with prejudice because a plaintiff shoul 2005Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex.2004). | 2 | 2 |
City of El Paso, Mayor Oscar Leeser, City Representatives Emma Acosta, Carl L. Robinson, Michiel R. Noe, Courtney C. Niland, Ann Morgan Lilly, Larry Romero, Claudia Ordaz and Lily Limon v. Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr.green2 sentences2022Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225-26 ; see also City of El Paso v. Waterblasting Techs., Inc., 491 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity challenges a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction). 2017Gay v. City of Wichita Falls, 457 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (citing Texas Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004)); see also City of El Paso v. Waterblasting Techs., Inc., 491 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity challenges a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction). | 2 | 2 |
County of El Paso v. Nayargreen2 sentences2018Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 225-26 6 (Tex. 2004); County of El Paso v. Navar, 511 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2015, no pet.). 2016County of El Paso v. Navar, 2015 WL 4711191, at *3 (Tex.App.-El Paso Aug. 7, 2015, no pet.) (citing Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex.2004)), The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is “to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit.” Bland Indep. | 2 | 2 |
City of Seagoville v. Lytlegreen2 sentences2012State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex.2007); see Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex.2004); see also City of Seagoville v. Lytle, 227 S.W.3d 401, 408 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). 2009See State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 689, 642 (Tex.2007); Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex.2004); see also City of Seagoville v. Lytle, 227 S.W.3d 401, 408 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Castillo v. Stategreen2 sentences2011State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 689, 642 (Tex.2007). 2009See State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 689, 642 (Tex.2007); Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex.2004); see also City of Seagoville v. Lytle, 227 S.W.3d 401, 408 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Nivens v. City of League Citygreen2 sentences2009“Questions involving the application of the principles of sovereign and governmental immunity and a party’s standing to bring an action are the proper subjects of a plea to the jurisdiction.” Nivens v. City of League City, 245 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Brown v. Todd, 53 S.W.3d 297, 300-01 (Tex.2001)). 2009A Questions involving the application of the principles of sovereign and governmental immunity and a party = s standing to bring an action are the proper subjects of a plea to the jurisdiction. @ Nivens v. City of League City , 245 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Brown v. Todd , 53 S.W.3d 297 , 300 B 01 (Tex. 2001)). | 2 | 2 |
Schauer v. Morgangreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Schauer v. Morgan, 175 S.W.3d 397, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (after trial court granted city's combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity for intentional torts, claims against government employee were barred under prior section 101.106); Bustillos v. Jacobs, 190 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ("a judgment granted in favor of a governmental unit based on the absence of statutory notice is a judgment for purposes of [prior] section 101.106"); Cox v. King, 855 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.App. 2008See, e.g., Schauer v. Morgan, 175 S.W.3d 397, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (after trial court granted city’s combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity for intentional torts, claims against government employee were barred under prior section 101.106); Bustillos v. Jacobs, 190 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (“a judgment granted in favor of a governmental unit based on the absence of statutory notice is a judgment for purposes of [prior] section 101.106”); Cox v. King, 855 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.App. | 2 | 2 |
Bustillos v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Schauer v. Morgan, 175 S.W.3d 397, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (after trial court granted city's combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity for intentional torts, claims against government employee were barred under prior section 101.106); Bustillos v. Jacobs, 190 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ("a judgment granted in favor of a governmental unit based on the absence of statutory notice is a judgment for purposes of [prior] section 101.106"); Cox v. King, 855 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.App. 2008See, e.g., Schauer v. Morgan, 175 S.W.3d 397, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (after trial court granted city’s combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity for intentional torts, claims against government employee were barred under prior section 101.106); Bustillos v. Jacobs, 190 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (“a judgment granted in favor of a governmental unit based on the absence of statutory notice is a judgment for purposes of [prior] section 101.106”); Cox v. King, 855 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.App. | 2 | 2 |
Cox v. Kluggreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Schauer v. Morgan, 175 S.W.3d 397, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (after trial court granted city's combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity for intentional torts, claims against government employee were barred under prior section 101.106); Bustillos v. Jacobs, 190 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ("a judgment granted in favor of a governmental unit based on the absence of statutory notice is a judgment for purposes of [prior] section 101.106"); Cox v. King, 855 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.App. 2008See, e.g., Schauer v. Morgan, 175 S.W.3d 397, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (after trial court granted city’s combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity for intentional torts, claims against government employee were barred under prior section 101.106); Bustillos v. Jacobs, 190 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (“a judgment granted in favor of a governmental unit based on the absence of statutory notice is a judgment for purposes of [prior] section 101.106”); Cox v. King, 855 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Laingreen2 sentences2005State v. Lain , 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Tex. 1961). 2005State v. Lain , 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Tex. 1961). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Toddgreen2 sentences2009“Questions involving the application of the principles of sovereign and governmental immunity and a party’s standing to bring an action are the proper subjects of a plea to the jurisdiction.” Nivens v. City of League City, 245 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Brown v. Todd, 53 S.W.3d 297, 300-01 (Tex.2001)). 2009A Questions involving the application of the principles of sovereign and governmental immunity and a party = s standing to bring an action are the proper subjects of a plea to the jurisdiction. @ Nivens v. City of League City , 245 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Brown v. Todd , 53 S.W.3d 297 , 300 B 01 (Tex. 2001)). | 1 | 2 |
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvaradogreen1 sentence2023However, “a party’s right to nonsuit cannot be used to disturb a court’s judgment on the merits of a claim, such as a partial summary judgment against the nonsuiting party.” Villafani, 251 S.W.3d at 469 (citing Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex. 1995)); see Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 , 639—640 (Tex. 2004) (noting that a dismissal following the grant of a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity “constitutes a final determination on the merits of the matter actually decided,” and that “[s]uch a dismissal is with prejudice because a plaintiff shoul | 1 | 1 |
City of Houston v. Christopher Rhulegreen1 sentence2023Plea to the Jurisdiction Subject-matter jurisdiction is “essential to a court’s power to decide a case.” City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440, 442 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting Bland Indep. | 1 | 1 |
City of League City v. Christobelle Leblanc and Stanford Leblancgreen1 sentence2021Standard of Review “A plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity is a challenge to the trial court’s subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” City of League City v. LeBlanc, 467 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing City of Waco v. Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2009)). “[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court’s power to decide a case.” Bland Indep. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davygreen1 sentence2018Tex. Natural Research Comm 'n v. IT Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Christopher L. Gay and Steven L. Carroll v. the City of Wichita Falls, Texasgreen1 sentence2017Gay v. City of Wichita Falls, 457 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (citing Texas Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004)); see also City of El Paso v. Waterblasting Techs., Inc., 491 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity challenges a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
Hoff v. Nueces Countygreen1 sentence2016Hoff v. Nueces Cty., 153 S.W.3d 45, 48 (Tex. 2004); Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
| City of Houston and Daniel W. Kruger, in His Official Capacity as Director of Public Works and Engineering Department v. Little Nell Apartments, L.P.green | 1 | 1 |
City of Pasadena v. Kuhngreen1 sentence2015It is the plaintiff’s burden to allege facts that affirmatively establish the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” City of Pasadena v. Kuhn, 260 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (internal –7– HOU:3586037.6 citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Archibeque v. NORTH TEXAS STATE HOSP.green | 1 | 1 |
| County of Cameron v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Elsa v. Gonzalezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Campos v. Texas Department of Criminal Justicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Houston v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Texas Department of Transportation v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bell v. City of Grand Prairiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2005Id. | 3 | 2004–2005 |
Villafani v. Trejo
green
1 sentence2023However, “a party’s right to nonsuit cannot be used to disturb a court’s judgment on the merits of a claim, such as a partial summary judgment against the nonsuiting party.” Villafani, 251 S.W.3d at 469 (citing Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex. 1995)); see Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 , 639—640 (Tex. 2004) (noting that a dismissal following the grant of a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity “constitutes a final determination on the merits of the matter actually decided,” and that “[s]uch a dismissal is with prejudice because a plaintiff shoul | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cervantes v. McKellar
green
1 sentence2018Cervantes v. McKellar, 424 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2014, no pet.). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
University of the Incarnate Word v. Redus
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Matthews ex rel. M.M. v. Kountze Independent School District
green
1 sentence2016The Resolution and Order No. 3 provided that the District is “not required to prohibit messages on school banners ... that display fleeting expressions of community sentiment solely because the source or origin of such message is religious,” but the District “retains the right to restrict the content of the school banners.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Monroe Shop Partners, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
East Houston Estate Apartments, L.L.C. v. City of Houston
green
1 sentence2015In response , to the lawsuit, the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity, Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Strode v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| City of Mesquite v. PKG Contracting, Inc. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Stewart v. City of Corsicana green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Dallas Cty. Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Bossley green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| City of Irving v. Inform Construction, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Thompson v. City of Dallas green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.