jurisdiction based immunity in Texas

2009Standard of Review We review the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity from suit under a de novo standard of review. 6 In reviewing the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction, we do not review the merits of the case. 7 When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause. 8 We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and look to the pleader’s intent.9 If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonst

2005This allegation raises a question of subject matter jurisdiction that we must address as a preliminary matter on appeal. [7] See Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 224 (detailing the procedure for raising, and ruling on, a plea to the jurisdiction based on a waiver of sovereign immunity under the TTCA); Gibson , 22 S.W.3d at 850 .

2009See Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 638 .

2009See Jones , 8 S.W.3d at 638 .

2005Id.

2005Id. at 814 .

2010Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 839-40 (Tex.2007) (holding that a plaintiff who loses a plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity is entitled to remand if the jurisdictional pleading defect can be cured by amendment).

2010Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835 , 839–40 (Tex. 2007) (holding that a plaintiff who loses a plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity is entitled to remand if the jurisdictional pleading defect can be cured by amendment).

2015Pipe and Supply, 397 S.W.3d 162, 166 (Tex. 2013) (Court should grant plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity where plaintiff cannot establish viable constitutional claim); Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012).

2009Conservation Comm’n, 124 S.W.3d 844, 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied)). 8 … See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 . 9 … Id.; Singer, 232 S.W.3d at 795 . 4 amend.10 If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend.11 However, if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised, as the trial court is required to do.12 III.

2009Standard of Review We review the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity from suit under a de novo standard of review. 6 In reviewing the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction, we do not review the merits of the case. 7 When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause. 8 We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and look to the pleader’s intent.9 If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonst

2009Conservation Comm’n, 124 S.W.3d 844, 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied)). 8 … See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 . 9 … Id.; Singer, 232 S.W.3d at 795 . 4 amend.10 If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend.11 However, if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised, as the trial court is required to do.12 III.

2006GOV’T CODE §§ 2251.001-.055, and quantum meruit The trial court sustained the District’s plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity from suit and dismissed the case, and a divided court of appeals affirmed. 123 S.W.3d 63, 65-68 (Tex.App. — Dallas 2004).

2006The court of appeals affirmed. 161 S.W.3d 3, 8 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004).

2006The court of appeals reversed and dismissed the case, holding that immunity was not waived by section 51.075 of the Local Government Code or by a provision in the City’s charter authorizing it to “sue and be sued, ... contract and be contracted with; ... implead and be impleaded in all courts and places and in all matters whatever”. 1 164 S.W.3d 931, 933 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005).

2006The court of appeals reversed and dismissed the case, holding that section 51.075 of the Local Government Code does not waive a city’s immunity from suit. 134 S.W.3d 925, 926-928 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004).

2004See, e.g., Thomas v. Long, 97 S.W.3d 300, 302-03 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. granted) (refusing interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction as no order granted or denied a plea to the jurisdiction); Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Tate, 77 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (refusing interlocutory appeal because trial court’s order was summary judgment based on immunity from liability rather than plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity from suit). .

2004Lamar Univ. v. Doe, 971 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, no pet.). .

2004See, e.g., Thomas v. Long, 97 S.W.3d 300, 302-03 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. granted) (refusing interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction as no order granted or denied a plea to the jurisdiction); Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Tate, 77 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (refusing interlocutory appeal because trial court’s order was summary judgment based on immunity from liability rather than plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity from suit). .