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.
8 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lowe v. Texas Tech Universitygreen2 sentences2003See Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ ., 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1976). 2003See Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ., 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1976). | 2 | 2 |
Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2016To the contrary, in 2003, the Court cited Fernandez favorably in discussing the concept of sovereign immunity, noting there are “rare occasions” when it has found a waiver of sovereign immunity absent ■ the Legislature’s use of “magic words,” such where a statutory provision would be rendered “meaningless unless immunity were waived.” Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 697 (Tex. 2003). 2016The Court noted that this was the case in Fernandez , in which it had held that the provisions of. the anti-retaliation statute defining a state agency as an employer would have “no meaning absent waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. | 1 | 4 |
Familias Unidas, an Unincorporated Association, and Irma Torrez v. Dolph Briscoegreen1 sentence2021“An employee’s actions taken pursuant to his duties and authorized by state law are considered actions taken by the State,” and courts have held that for whistleblower purposes, the acts of an appointed officer that fall within the authority of his office, even if he misuses that authority, “should be construed as acts of the employing governmental entity.” 13 Housing Auth. of City of El Paso v. Rangel, 131 S.W.3d 542, 547-48 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, pet. granted by agr., judgm’t vacated w.r.m.); see also Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 403 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Actions for damages again | 1 | 1 |
Housing Authority of the City of El Paso v. Rangelgreen1 sentence2021“An employee’s actions taken pursuant to his duties and authorized by state law are considered actions taken by the State,” and courts have held that for whistleblower purposes, the acts of an appointed officer that fall within the authority of his office, even if he misuses that authority, “should be construed as acts of the employing governmental entity.” 13 Housing Auth. of City of El Paso v. Rangel, 131 S.W.3d 542, 547-48 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, pet. granted by agr., judgm’t vacated w.r.m.); see also Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 403 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Actions for damages again | 1 | 1 |
Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulationgreen1 sentence2021“An employee’s actions taken pursuant to his duties and authorized by state law are considered actions taken by the State,” and courts have held that for whistleblower purposes, the acts of an appointed officer that fall within the authority of his office, even if he misuses that authority, “should be construed as acts of the employing governmental entity.” 13 Housing Auth. of City of El Paso v. Rangel, 131 S.W.3d 542, 547-48 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, pet. granted by agr., judgm’t vacated w.r.m.); see also Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 403 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Actions for damages again | 1 | 1 |
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.red1 sentence2002See, e.g., IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 856-57 (rejecting argument for waiver by conduct in contract case where State had fully accepted benefits of contract); see also Travis County v. Pelzel & Assocs., Inc., 77 S.W.3d 246, 251-52 , 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 623 , 626-27 (2002) (rejecting waiver-by-conduct exception to sovereign immunity where county invoked contract’s liquidated damages provision). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davygreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 856-57 (rejecting argument for waiver by conduct in contract case where State had fully accepted benefits of contract); see also Travis County v. Pelzel & Assocs., Inc., 77 S.W.3d 246, 251-52 , 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 623 , 626-27 (2002) (rejecting waiver-by-conduct exception to sovereign immunity where county invoked contract’s liquidated damages provision). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.