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 2 courts 2007–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2025To the contrary, the Court has recognized that “we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law.” Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 699 (Tex. 2003). 2018See Albert , 354 S.W.3d at 375 ("[T]he judiciary has abrogated [governmental entities'] common law immunity from suit as to certain offsetting claims."); Taylor , 106 S.W.3d at 696 ("[W]e have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law...."). | 3 | 5 |
City of Dallas v. Albertgreen2 sentences2018See Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 375 (“[T]he judiciary has abrogated [governmental entities’] common law immunity from suit as to certain offsetting claims.”); Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 696 (“[W]e have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law . . . .”). 24 Reata is our foundational case discussing abrogation. 2018See Albert , 354 S.W.3d at 375 ("[T]he judiciary has abrogated [governmental entities'] common law immunity from suit as to certain offsetting claims."); Taylor , 106 S.W.3d at 696 ("[W]e have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law...."). | 2 | 2 |
Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302green2 sentences2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. 2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. | 2 | 2 |
Pruett v. City of Rosedalered2 sentences2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. 2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. | 2 | 2 |
Nieting v. Blondellgreen2 sentences2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. 2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. | 2 | 2 |
Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2015Wichita Falls State Hosp., 106 S.W.3d at 696 ; see Reata, 197 S.W.3d at 375 (“[w]e have generally de- ferred to the Legislature to waive immunity”). 2007If this Court has the authority to consider abolishing immunity, then we may certainly determine its existence. [11] 197 S.W.3d at 374 . [12] See id. [13] ___ S.W.3d at ___. [14] Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) (noting that the United States Constitution “‘specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities’”) (quoting Seminole Tribe v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44 , 71 n.15 (1996)). [15] Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898, 919 (1997) (quoting The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison)). [16] Alden , 527 U.S. at 724 . [17] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. | 1 | 2 |
Printz v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007If this Court has the authority to consider abolishing immunity, then we may certainly determine its existence. [11] 197 S.W.3d at 374 . [12] See id. [13] ___ S.W.3d at ___. [14] Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) (noting that the United States Constitution “‘specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities’”) (quoting Seminole Tribe v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44 , 71 n.15 (1996)). [15] Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898, 919 (1997) (quoting The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison)). [16] Alden , 527 U.S. at 724 . [17] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. | 1 | 1 |
Alden v. Mainegreen2 sentences2007If this Court has the authority to consider abolishing immunity, then we may certainly determine its existence. [11] 197 S.W.3d at 374 . [12] See id. [13] ___ S.W.3d at ___. [14] Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) (noting that the United States Constitution “‘specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities’”) (quoting Seminole Tribe v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44 , 71 n.15 (1996)). [15] Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898, 919 (1997) (quoting The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison)). [16] Alden , 527 U.S. at 724 . [17] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 2007If this Court has the authority to consider abolishing immunity, then we may certainly determine its existence. [11] 197 S.W.3d at 374 . [12] See id. [13] ___ S.W.3d at ___. [14] Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) (noting that the United States Constitution “‘specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities’”) (quoting Seminole Tribe v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44 , 71 n.15 (1996)). [15] Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898, 919 (1997) (quoting The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison)). [16] Alden , 527 U.S. at 724 . [17] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Sign v. Texas Southern Universityred1 sentence2007It is one thing to waive my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent but quite another to hear that no such right exists in the first place. [9] 106 S.W.3d 692, 695 (Tex. 2003); see also Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ. , 951 S.W.2d 401, 409 (Tex. 1997) (“[T]his Court has uniformly held that it is the Legislature’s sole province to waive or abrogate sovereign immunity.”). [10] We also wrote in Taylor that this Court, like those in other jurisdictions, has not “foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity.” 106 S.W.3d at 695 B 96. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bulman v. Hulstrand Construction Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Co., 521 N.W.2d 632 , 639-40 (N.D.1994); Mayle v. Pa. Dep’t of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 , 709-10 (1978); McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 , 742-43 (1985). [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] When considering immunity in Texas, we address not only whether the State has consented to suit, but also whether the State has accepted liability. 2015Co., 521 N.W.2d 632 , 639-40 (N.D.1994); Mayle v. Pa. Dep’t of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 , 709-10 (1978); McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 , 742-43 (1985). [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] When considering immunity in Texas, we address not only whether the State has consented to suit, but also whether the State has accepted liability. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
McCall ex rel. Andrews v. Batson
red
2 sentences2015Co., 521 N.W.2d 632 , 639-40 (N.D.1994); Mayle v. Pa. Dep’t of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 , 709-10 (1978); McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 , 742-43 (1985). [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] When considering immunity in Texas, we address not only whether the State has consented to suit, but also whether the State has accepted liability. 2015Co., 521 N.W.2d 632 , 639-40 (N.D.1994); Mayle v. Pa. Dep’t of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 , 709-10 (1978); McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 , 742-43 (1985). [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] When considering immunity in Texas, we address not only whether the State has consented to suit, but also whether the State has accepted liability. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways
yellow
2 sentences2015Co., 521 N.W.2d 632 , 639-40 (N.D.1994); Mayle v. Pa. Dep’t of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 , 709-10 (1978); McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 , 742-43 (1985). [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] When considering immunity in Texas, we address not only whether the State has consented to suit, but also whether the State has accepted liability. 2015Co., 521 N.W.2d 632 , 639-40 (N.D.1994); Mayle v. Pa. Dep’t of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 , 709-10 (1978); McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243 , 329 S.E.2d 741 , 742-43 (1985). [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] When considering immunity in Texas, we address not only whether the State has consented to suit, but also whether the State has accepted liability. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Evans v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. 2015Although we have not absolutely foreclosed the possibility that the judiciary may abrogate immunity by modifying the common law, we have no occasion to consider that possibility today. 4 See, e.g., Evans v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 174 Colo. 97 , 482 P.2d 968 , 972 (1971); Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 , 163 N.E.2d 89, 95 (1959); Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597, 603 (1975); Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Miss.1982); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Sefzik
green
1 sentence2025Thus, the Texas Supreme Court has recognized that, “[o]n ‘rare occasions,’ we may recognize a waiver absent explicit [statutory] language.” Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 , 622 n.4 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 697 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
green
1 sentence2007If this Court has the authority to consider abolishing immunity, then we may certainly determine its existence. [11] 197 S.W.3d at 374 . [12] See id. [13] ___ S.W.3d at ___. [14] Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) (noting that the United States Constitution “‘specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities’”) (quoting Seminole Tribe v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44 , 71 n.15 (1996)). [15] Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898, 919 (1997) (quoting The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison)). [16] Alden , 527 U.S. at 724 . [17] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.