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.
13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
C. Borunda Holdings, Inc. v. Lake Proctor Irrigation Auth. of Comanche Cnty.green2 sentences2025Borunda Holdings, Inc. v. Lake Proctor Irrigation Auth. of Comanche Cty., 540 S.W.3d 548, 550 (Tex. 2018) (per curiam) (citations omitted). 2021“Instead, the scope of governmental immunity simply does not reach the defensive counterclaims to the extent that any recovery on the counterclaims serves as an ‘offset’ against the government’s recovery.” Id. (quoting C. | 3 | 5 |
Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2024Rather, the scope of governmental immunity “simply does not reach the defensive counterclaims to the extent that any recovery on the counterclaims serves as an ‘offset’ against the government’s recovery.” Id. (discussing Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 376-77 ). 2024Rather, the scope of governmental immunity “simply does not reach the defensive counterclaims to the extent that any recovery on the counterclaims serves as an ‘offset’ against the government’s recovery.” Id. (discussing Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 376-77 ). | 1 | 5 |
Anderson v. City of McKinneygreen1 sentence2013Anderson v. City of McKinney, 236 S.W.3d 481, 482-83 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
TEXAS DMHMR v. Petty by Kauffmangreen2 sentences1994This Court considered the scope of governmental immunity arising from alleged negligent use of a patient's medical records in Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Petty, 848 S.W.2d 680, 686 (Tex.1992). 1994I.' This Court considered the scope of governmental immunity arising from alleged negligent use of a patient’s medical records in Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Petty, 848 S.W.2d 680, 686 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. v. State
green
2 sentences2025No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Nazari v. State, 561 S.W.3d 495 (2018) 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1525 Although the state may elect to waive its A governmental entity does not waive its sovereign immunity, that policy decision belongs sovereign immunity by filing a claim for largely to the legislature. affirmative relief; instead, the scope of governmental immunity does not reach the defensive counterclaims to the extent that any [5] States Mode and sufficiency of waiver or recovery on the counterclaims serves as an offset consent against the government's recovery. 2019“Instead, the scope of governmental immunity simply does not reach the defensive counterclaims to the extent that any recovery on the counterclaims serves as an ‘offset’ against the government’s recovery.” Id. at 502 . | 2 | 2019–2025 |
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich
green
1 sentence2022The Texas Supreme Court examined the scope of governmental immunity from equitable claims in City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Anderson v. State ex rel. Allred
green
1 sentence2019Where a governmental entity “voluntarily files a suit and submits its rights for judicial determination, it will be bound thereby, and the defense will be entitled to plead and prove all matters properly defensive.” Id. at 504 ; Anderson, 62 S.W.2d at 110 ; see Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 375 (“[W]e believe it would be fundamentally unfair to allow a governmental entity to assert affirmative claims against a party while claiming it had immunity as to the party’s claims against it”). 2. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.