governmental entity waives immunity in Texas

2007See Catalina Dev., Inc. v. County of El Paso, 121 S.W.3d 704, 705 (Tex.2003); Gen.

2007See Catalina Dev., Inc. v. County of El Paso, 121 S.W.3d 704, 705 (Tex.2003); Gen.

2012Although by entering into a contract a governmental entity waives its immunity fromliability for breach of the contract, it “does not, merely by entering into a contract, waive immunity from suit.” Tex. A&M Univ.–Kingsville v. Lawson , 87 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. 2002); Little-Tex Insulation Co. , 39 S.W.3d at 594 .The supreme court has, however, recognized the legislature’s “express waiver” of a governmental unit’s immunity both from liability and from suit for workers’ compensation benefits claims.

2012Although by entering into a contract a governmental entity waives its immunity from liability for breach of the contract, it “does not, merely by entering into a contract, waive immunity from suit.” Tex. A & M Univ.-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex.2002); Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d at 594 .

2026“A governmental entity waives its immunity from liability by entering into a contract, voluntarily binding itself like any other party to the agreement.” Dallas/Fort Worth Int’l Airport Bd. v. Vizant Techs., LLC, 576 S.W.3d 362, 367 (Tex. 2019) (citing Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 332 ).

2020By entering a contract, a governmental entity waives immunity from liability for breach of that contract, “voluntarily binding itself like any other party to the terms of the agreement, but it does not waive immunity from suit.” Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 332 .

2006We decline to overrule our precedent and note that in Reata Construction the supreme court quoted approvingly from Martin , stating, "[B]y filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is 'incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.'" 2004 Tex. LEXIS 303 , at *7 (quoting Martin , 347 S.W.2d at 814 ) (emphasis added); see also State v. Cook United, Inc. , 463 S.W.2d 509, 516 (Tex. Civ.

2006We decline to overrule our precedent and note that in Reata Construction the supreme court quoted approvingly from Martin , stating, “[B]y filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is ‘incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.’ ” — S.W.3d at -, 2004 WL 726906 , at *3, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 303 , at ⅝7 (quoting Martin, 347 S.W.2d at 814 ) (emphasis added); see also State v. Cook United, Inc., 463 S.W.2d 509, 516 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 469 S.W.2d

2017Id.

2015Field See Ben Bolt, 212 S.W.3d at 324 ("By entering into a Filed: August 23, 2013 contract, the State waives its immunity from liability [**33] but not its immunity from suit."); Jones, 8 S.W.3d APPENDIX A7 CAUSE NO.

2013See Ben Bolt, 212 S.W.3d at 324 (“By entering into a contract, the State waives' its immunity from liability but not its immunity from suit.”); Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 637 (plaintiffs burden to allege valid waiver of immunity).

2013See Ben Bolt, 212 S.W.3d at 324 (“By entering into a contract, the State waives its immunity from liability but not its immunity from suit.”); Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 637 (plaintiff’s burden to allege valid waiver of immunity).

2013See id.; IT-Davy, S.W.3d at 855-56; Multi-County Water Supply, 321 S.W.3d at 907 (noting that UDJA “is not a general waiver of governmental immunity” and that “[b]y entering into a contract, a governmental entity waives immunity from liability but does not waive immunity from suit”); Lower Colorado River Auth. v. Riley, No. 10-10-00092-CV, 2011 WL 6956136 , at *2 (Tex.App.-Waco Dec. 28, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (UDJA “not general waiver of sovereign immunity”); Thus, LCRA’s UDJA claims do not satisfy its burden to allege a valid waiver of immunity from suit.

2013See id.; IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855–56; Multi–County Water Supply, 321 S.W.3d at 907 (noting that UDJA “is not a general waiver of governmental immunity” and that “[b]y entering into a contract, a governmental entity waives immunity from liability but does not waive immunity from suit”); Lower Colorado River Auth. v. Riley, No. 10-10-00092-CV, 2011 WL 6956136 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2 Dec. 28, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (UDJA “not general waiver of sovereign immunity”).

2010See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 374 . [8] The court has held that, by filing suit, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit as to certain counterclaims.

2008See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 374 . [8] The court has held that, by filing suit, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit as to certain counterclaims.

2007In contrast, in Reata I , the supreme court had previously held, "'[B]y filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.'" Ray Ferguson Interests v. Harris County Sports & Convention Corp. , 169 S.W.3d 18, 23 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (quoting Reata I , No. 02-1031, 2004 WL 726906 , at *3 (Tex. Apr. 2, 2004) (per curiam)) (emphasis in original).

2007In contrast, in Reata I, the supreme court had previously held, “ ‘[BJy filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.’ ” Ray Ferguson Interests v. Harris County Sports & Convention Corp., 169 S.W.3d 18, 23 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (quoting Reata I, No. 02-1031, 2004 WL 726906 , at *3 (Tex. Apr.2, 2004) (per curiam)) (emphasis in original).

2007Id; Kinnear v. Tex. Comm’n on Human Rights, 14 S.W.3d 299, 300 (Tex.2000); Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. State ex rel.

2007Id. ; Kinnear v. Tex. Comm’n on Human Rights , 14 S.W.3d 299, 300 (Tex. 2000); Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. State ex rel.

2006We decline to overrule our precedent and note that in Reata Construction the supreme court quoted approvingly from Martin , stating, "[B]y filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is 'incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.'" 2004 Tex. LEXIS 303 , at *7 (quoting Martin , 347 S.W.2d at 814 ) (emphasis added); see also State v. Cook United, Inc. , 463 S.W.2d 509, 516 (Tex. Civ.

2006We decline to overrule our precedent and note that in Reata Construction the supreme court quoted approvingly from Martin , stating, “[B]y filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is ‘incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.’ ” — S.W.3d at -, 2004 WL 726906 , at *3, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 303 , at ⅝7 (quoting Martin, 347 S.W.2d at 814 ) (emphasis added); see also State v. Cook United, Inc., 463 S.W.2d 509, 516 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 469 S.W.2d

2006App.--Fort Worth), aff'd as modified on other grounds , 469 S.W.2d 709 (Tex. 1971) (quoting Martin ); State v. Brunson , 461 S.W.2d 681, 684 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Anderson, Clayton & Co. and Martin ) ("Appellees' right to defend included the right to file a cross-action and obtain affirmative relief where their claim is incident to, connected with, or is germane to the suit or controversy originated by the State."); State v. Noser , 422 S.W.2d 594 , 599 n.1 (Tex. Civ.

2006We decline to overrule our precedent and note that in Reata Construction the supreme court quoted approvingly from Martin , stating, “[B]y filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is ‘incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.’ ” — S.W.3d at -, 2004 WL 726906 , at *3, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 303 , at ⅝7 (quoting Martin, 347 S.W.2d at 814 ) (emphasis added); see also State v. Cook United, Inc., 463 S.W.2d 509, 516 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 469 S.W.2d

2005Based on the Reata decision, this court has held that a governmental entity’s counterclaim seeking affirmative relief constitutes “an intentional relinquishment of any claim to governmental immunity.” City of Dallas v. Martin, 140 S.W.3d 924, 925 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet. h.); City of Dallas v. Bargman, — S.W.3d-,-, No. 05-04-00316-CV, 2004 WL 2222510 , at *3 (Tex.App.-Dallas Oct.5, 2004, no pet. h.); City of Iwing v. Inform Constr., Inc., 143 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. filed).

2005Based on the Reata decision, this court has held that a governmental entity’s counterclaim seeking affirmative relief constitutes “an intentional relinquishment of any claim to governmental immunity.” City of Dallas v. Martin, 140 S.W.3d 924, 925 (Tex.App.Dallas 2004, no pet. h.); City of Dallas v. Bargman, No. 05-04-00316-CV, — S.W.3d-,-, 2004 WL 2222510 , at *3 (Tex.App.-Dallas Oct. 5, 2004, no pet. h.); City of Irving v. Inform Constr., Inc., 143 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. filed).

2005Based on the Reata decision, this court has held that a governmental entity’s counterclaim seeking affirmative relief constitutes “an intentional relinquishment of any claim to governmental immunity.” City of Dallas v. Martin, 140 S.W.3d 924, 925 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet. h.); City of Dallas v. Bargman, — S.W.3d-,-, No. 05-04-00316-CV, 2004 WL 2222510 , at *3 (Tex.App.-Dallas Oct.5, 2004, no pet. h.); City of Iwing v. Inform Constr., Inc., 143 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. filed).

2005Based on the Reata decision, this court has held that a governmental entity’s counterclaim seeking affirmative relief constitutes “an intentional relinquishment of any claim to governmental immunity.” City of Dallas v. Martin, 140 S.W.3d 924, 925 (Tex.App.Dallas 2004, no pet. h.); City of Dallas v. Bargman, No. 05-04-00316-CV, — S.W.3d-,-, 2004 WL 2222510 , at *3 (Tex.App.-Dallas Oct. 5, 2004, no pet. h.); City of Irving v. Inform Constr., Inc., 143 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. filed).

2026“A governmental entity waives its immunity from liability by entering into a contract, voluntarily binding itself like any other party to the agreement.” Dallas/Fort Worth Int’l Airport Bd. v. Vizant Techs., LLC, 576 S.W.3d 362, 367 (Tex. 2019) (citing Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 332 ).

2025“A governmental entity waives its immunity from liability by entering into a contract, voluntarily binding itself like any other party to the agreement.” Vizant Techs., 576 S.W.3d at 367 .

2013See, e.g., IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855-56, 860 (stating that immunity generally protects a governmental entity from declaratory-judgment suits that seek to establish a contract’s validity or enforce performance under the contract “because such suits attempt to control state action”).

2013See id.; IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855–56; Multi–County Water Supply, 321 S.W.3d at 907 (noting that UDJA “is not a general waiver of governmental immunity” and that “[b]y entering into a contract, a governmental entity waives immunity from liability but does not waive immunity from suit”); Lower Colorado River Auth. v. Riley, No. 10-10-00092-CV, 2011 WL 6956136 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2 Dec. 28, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (UDJA “not general waiver of sovereign immunity”).

2006App.--Fort Worth), aff'd as modified on other grounds , 469 S.W.2d 709 (Tex. 1971) (quoting Martin ); State v. Brunson , 461 S.W.2d 681, 684 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Anderson, Clayton & Co. and Martin ) ("Appellees' right to defend included the right to file a cross-action and obtain affirmative relief where their claim is incident to, connected with, or is germane to the suit or controversy originated by the State."); State v. Noser , 422 S.W.2d 594 , 599 n.1 (Tex. Civ.

2006We decline to overrule our precedent and note that in Reata Construction the supreme court quoted approvingly from Martin , stating, “[B]y filing a suit for damages, a governmental entity waives immunity from suit for any claim that is ‘incident to, connected with, arises out of, or is germane to the suit or controversy brought by the State.’ ” — S.W.3d at -, 2004 WL 726906 , at *3, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 303 , at ⅝7 (quoting Martin, 347 S.W.2d at 814 ) (emphasis added); see also State v. Cook United, Inc., 463 S.W.2d 509, 516 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 469 S.W.2d

2025Compare Tex. Dep't of Parks and Wildlife v. 21 Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004) (“The See Nelson, supra note 19 at 1598 (discussing trial court must determine at its earliest opportunity Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 , 1 whether it has the constitutional or statutory L.Ed. 440 (1793)). authority to decide the case before allowing The full story is that sovereign immunity includes concerns the litigation to proceed.”), with Mayhew about both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, but is v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 , 928 identical to neither.

2025Compare Tex. Dep't of Parks and Wildlife v. 21 Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004) (“The See Nelson, supra note 19 at 1598 (discussing trial court must determine at its earliest opportunity Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 , 1 whether it has the constitutional or statutory L.Ed. 440 (1793)). authority to decide the case before allowing The full story is that sovereign immunity includes concerns the litigation to proceed.”), with Mayhew about both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, but is v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 , 928 identical to neither.

2025Compare Tex. Dep't of Parks and Wildlife v. 21 Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004) (“The See Nelson, supra note 19 at 1598 (discussing trial court must determine at its earliest opportunity Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 , 1 whether it has the constitutional or statutory L.Ed. 440 (1793)). authority to decide the case before allowing The full story is that sovereign immunity includes concerns the litigation to proceed.”), with Mayhew about both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, but is v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 , 928 identical to neither.

2014Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Tex. 2006); Freedman v. Univ. of Houston, 110 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

2012City of La Porte v. Barfield , 898 S.W.2d 288, 294 (Tex. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds , Travis Cent.Appraisal Dist. v. Norman , 342 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. 2011).Moreover, a plurality of the supreme court has held that “when a governmental entity is exposed to suit because of a waiver of immunity, it cannot nullify that waiver by settling the claim with an agreement on which it cannot be sued.” Lawson , 87 S.W.3d at 521 .