based on sovereign immunity in Texas

2015See Porretto v. Patterson, 251 S.W.3d 701, 708 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) (“[w]hen in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained”).

2015See Porretto v. Patterson, 251 S.W.3d 701, 708 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) (“[w]hen in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained”).

2015See Porretto v. Patterson, 251 S.W.3d 701, 708 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) (“[w]hen in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained”).

2010See Porretto v. Patterson, 251 S.W.3d 701, 708 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) (“[w]hen in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained”)); see also Turley, 316 S.W.3d at 773 ; State v. BP Am.

2013See Sawyer Trust, 354 S.W.3d at 388 (“When in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained”); Dyer, 358 S.W.3d at 704–05 (“The Department and the County argue that immunity from suit has not been waived for Dyer’s trespass claim because Dyer has alleged an intentional tort for which the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity.

2013We agree.”); Harris County v. Cypress, 50 S.W.3d 551, 554 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (“Appellee’s Second Amended Petition clearly asserts that appellant’s dumping of hazardous materials on its property was intended[; thus, it] states a cause of action for intentional trespass[ for which immunity has not been waived.]”).

2011Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex.1997) (“This Court has long recognized that sovereign immunity, unless waived, protects the State of Texas, its agencies and its officials from lawsuits for damages, absent legislative consent to sue the State.”); State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) ("When in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained in limine.”); but see Tex. Nat.

2010See Porretto v. Patterson, 251 S.W.3d 701, 708 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) ("[w]hen in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained")); see also Turley, 316 S.W.3d at 773 ; State v. BP Am.

2010See Porretto v. Patterson, 251 S.W.3d 701, 708 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549 , 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) (“[w]hen in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained”)); see also Turley, 316 S.W.3d at 773 ; State v. BP Am.