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.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris County v. Sykesgreen2 sentences2022Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004). 2020Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2012Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004)). 2012Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Tex.2010) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex.2004)). | 2 | 2 |
The University of Texas at Austin v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2012Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004)). 2012Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Tex.2010) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex.2004)). | 2 | 2 |
John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Dewhurstgreen1 sentence2015See John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Mem’l Found. v. Dewhurst, 90 S.W.3d 268, 289 (Tex. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
green
1 sentence2025Controls, Inc. 221 S.W.3d 639 , Holding that the State retains sovereign immunity against an alleged takings claim 25 State v. Holland 643–44 (Tex. because the claim sounded in contract. 2007) State v. Fidelity 223 S.W.3d 309 , Holding State waived immunity against defensive counterclaim by initiating 26 and Deposit Co. of 312 (Tex. 2007) litigation on a performance bond. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Holland
green
1 sentence2025Controls, Inc. 221 S.W.3d 639 , Holding that the State retains sovereign immunity against an alleged takings claim 25 State v. Holland 643–44 (Tex. because the claim sounded in contract. 2007) State v. Fidelity 223 S.W.3d 309 , Holding State waived immunity against defensive counterclaim by initiating 26 and Deposit Co. of 312 (Tex. 2007) litigation on a performance bond. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Abilene Housing Authority v. Gene Duke Builders, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Maryland Abilene Housing 226 S.W.3d 415 , Holding municipal housing authority with power to “sue and be sued” may retain 27 Authority v. Gene 417 (Tex. 2007) immunity against breach of contract claim; remanded for further consideration. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Welch v. Texas Department of Highways & Public Transportation
green
2 sentences1992Although state sovereign immunity is not absolute, 3 the Supreme Court has usually required a “clear statement” or “unequivocal expression” of intent to abrogate the immunity in a statute. 4 In the maritime law area, the Court held that the Jones Act 5 abrogated state sovereign immunity. 6 In the plurality and concurring opinions in Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468 , 107 S.Ct. 2941 , 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987), the Court held that, as to the Jones Act, a state retains sovereign immunity against suits by its own citizens in federal courts unless it has waived its imm 1992Although state sovereign immunity is not absolute, 3 the Supreme Court has usually required a “clear statement” or “unequivocal expression” of intent to abrogate the immunity in a statute. 4 In the maritime law area, the Court held that the Jones Act 5 abrogated state sovereign immunity. 6 In the plurality and concurring opinions in Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468 , 107 S.Ct. 2941 , 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987), the Court held that, as to the Jones Act, a state retains sovereign immunity against suits by its own citizens in federal courts unless it has waived its imm | 1 | 1992–1992 |