showing of a substantial claim in Texas

2023Compare Greenville, 2022 WL 2816532 , at *2 (quoting City of Mesquite), with 10 Zachry, 449 S.W.3d at 109 (“The Act waives immunity for contract claims that meet certain conditions: the existence of a specific type of contract, a demand for certain kinds of damages, a state forum, etc. The waiver . . . require[s] a showing of a substantial claim that meets the Act’s conditions.”) (emphasis added).

2020Because the Coverage Document does not contain similar language, we cannot conclude that the City’s alleged 18 failures to comply with these provisions would mean that it has not shown a “substantial claim that meets the Act’s conditions.” See Zachry, 449 S.W.3d 98, 109 (holding that the chapter 271 waiver “require[s] a showing of a substantial claim that meets the Act's conditions”).

2025Direct damages for breach – ‘the necessary and usual result of the defendant’s wrongful act’ – certainly qualify”) (quoting Basic Capital Mgmt. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., 348 S.W.3d 894, 901 (Tex. 2011)). 141 See City of Corpus Christi, 2020 WL 3478661 , at *4 n.2 (“However, Zachry only disapproved of Roma to the extent that [the Roma court] concluded that § 271.153 cannot serve as a proper basis for granting a plea to the jurisdiction.”). 40 in this regard is nothing more than the conclusion that immunity is not waived when a claimant “seeks only damages not recoverable under section 271.153.

2020See Zachry, 449 S.W.3d at 109 (holding that the chapter 271 waiver “require[s] a showing of a substantial claim that meets the Act’s conditions”); ERO, 579 S.W.3d at 128 (“[T]o show waiver of immunity, a claimant must plead facts showing that the conditions of section 271.154 have been met.”); see also TEX.

2015See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228 ; see also Zachry Const., 449 S.W.3d at 109 (“The waiver does not depend on the outcome, though it does require a showing of a substantial claim that meets the Act’s conditions.”).