50 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2010–2026 16 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulationgreen2 sentences2025“Under the redundant remedies doctrine, courts will not entertain an action brought under the UDJA when the same claim could be pursued through different channels.” Patel, 469 S.W.3d at 79 . 2025The redundant-remedies doctrine provides that “courts will not entertain an action brought under the UDJA when the same claim could be pursued through different channels.” Patel v. Tex. Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69, 79 (Tex. 2015). | 27 | 30 |
Swepi Lp v. Railroad Com'n of Texasgreen2 sentences2022Comm’n, 314 S.W.3d 253, 268 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. denied) (the redundant remedies doctrine is jurisdictional and a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted solely on that basis). 2011See SWEPI LP v. Railroad Comm’n of Texas & Hidalgo County, 314 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. filed). 9 Khan argues, however, that the redundant remedies doctrine is inapplicable, as her attack on the Commission’s order is not the entirety of the relief she seeks. | 4 | 4 |
Ben Robinson Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commissiongreen2 sentences2011Citing this Court’s decision in Ben Robinson Co. v. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, 934 S.W.2d 149, 153 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, writ denied), Khan argues that the remedy she seeks goes beyond an attack on the agency orders because her declaratory-judgment action challenges the constitutional validity of the cosmetology act as it applies to eyebrow threading in general. 2011Citing this Court's decision in Ben Robinson Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission , 934 S.W.2d 149, 153 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, writ denied), Khan argues that the remedy she seeks goes beyond an attack on the agency orders because her declaratory-judgment action challenges the constitutional validity of the cosmetology act as it applies to eyebrow threading in general. | 4 | 4 |
Rusk State Hospital v. Blackgreen2 sentences2015See Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. 2012) (noting that if a court does not have jurisdiction, its opinion addressing any issues other than jurisdiction is advisory). 2015See Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. 2012) (noting that if a court does not have jurisdiction, its opinion addressing any issues other than jurisdiction is advisory). 1 Amicus curiae briefs have been submitted by the Pacific Legal Foundation (in support of the Threaders); Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co., BNSF Railway Co., and Union Pacific Railway Co.; and South Texas College of Law 2014 State Constitutional Law Class (not submitted in support of either party). 6 II. | 3 | 3 |
Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Sys., Inc ., 101 S.W.3d 558, 572 (Tex. App.--Austin 2003, pet. denied); Kuntz v. Khan , No. 03-10-00160-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 446 , at *11 (Tex. App.--Austin Jan. 21, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). 2012See Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Sys., Inc., 101 S.W.3d 558, 572 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. denied); Kuntz v. Khan, No. 03-10-00160-CV, 2011 Tex.App. | 3 | 3 |
Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Districtgreen2 sentences2019Nevertheless, when a party challenges both rules and statutes, as Peterson did, the “UDJA claims are not barred by the redundant remedies doctrine” because “the [plaintiffs] cannot attack the constitutionality of the statutes pursuant to Section 2001.038 of the APA.” Patel v. Texas Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tex. 2015). 30 490 S.W.3d at 885 ; Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 637–38; Bank of N.Y. 2012Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 626-27 (Tex.1996)) (emphasis in original). | 2 | 4 |
City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd.green2 sentences2021City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 549 S.W.3d 163, 173 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017), vacated on other grounds by Carowest Land, Ltd. v. City of New Braunfels, 615 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. 2020). 59 D. 2018See City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd. , 549 S.W.3d 163 , 173, No. 03-16-00249-CV, 2017 WL 2857142 , at *6, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6130 , at *17 (Tex. App.-Austin June 29, 2017, no pet.) ("[U]nder the redundant remedies doctrine, courts do not have jurisdiction over a claim brought under the UDJA against a governmental entity 'when the same claim could be pursued through different channels.' " (quoting Patel v. Texas Dep't of Licensing & Regulation , 469 S.W.3d 69 , 79 (Tex. 2015) ) (other citations omitted) ). | 2 | 3 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc.green2 sentences2020See Sunset Transp., 357 S.W.3d at 705 (noting that “[a]ssuming that appellees replead under section 2001.038, we agree with appellants that appellees’ UDJA claims [which are predicated upon the ultra vires exception] would be redundant remedies” and “would be subject to dismissal”); Salazar, 304 S.W.3d at 906 n.7 (“To the extent the Appellees also seek relief under the UDJA in connection with these rule challenges, we dismiss those claims for want of jurisdiction on the ground that a party may not seek relief under the UDJA when such relief would be redundant to relief under the APA.”). 2017Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 705 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.). 20 statute, the UDJA does not provide jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs have identified no other potential waiver of immunity. | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of State Health Services v. Balquintagreen2 sentences2017Under that doctrine, “a litigant’s couching its requested relief in terms of declaratory relief does not alter the underlying nature of the suit . . . .” Texas Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726, 746 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. dism’d). 2015Under the redundant remedies doctrine, when a plaintiff “has invoked a statutory means of attacking an agency order, a trial court lacks jurisdiction over an additional claim under the UDJA that would merely determine the same issues and provide what is substantively the same relief that would be provided by the other statutory remedy.” Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726, 746 (Tex. App.– 4Only doctors may perform impairment ratings, but Morales did not make any doctor a party to his declaratory judgment claim. | 2 | 2 |
Mitz v. TEXAS STATE BD. OF VET. MED. EXAM.green2 sentences2012See, e.g., Mitz, 278 S.W.3d at 26 (case ripe for judicial review although administrative proceedings pending -because “continuing threat of civil, and criminal liability” established hardship without judicial consideration); Given their continuing exposure to. civil and criminal liability and Chamadia’s standing to assert appellants’ claims, we conclude that the redundant remedies doctrine does not bar the other individual appellants’ claims. 2012See id. | 2 | 2 |
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Sawyer Trustgreen1 sentence2026“Generally, sovereign immunity deprives a trial court of jurisdiction over a lawsuit in which a party has sued the State or a state agency unless the Legislature has consented to suit.” Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal Districtgreen1 sentence2025Appraisal Dist., 212 S.W.3d 665, 669 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (“When a statute provides an avenue for attacking an agency order, a declaratory judgment action will not lie to provide redundant remedies.”). | 1 | 1 |
| New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bank of New York Mellon v. Soniavou Books, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Finance Commission v. Norwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robinson v. Alief Independent School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McLane Co. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Subaru of America, Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Millardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jamie Harvel and the Austin Police Association v. Texas Department of Insurance - Division of Workers' Compensation, and Commissioner Rod Borderlon, in His Official Capacitygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Waco Independent School District v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2012They also contend that the claims of Momin, Yogi, and Rokhti are subject to the redundant remedies doctrine. ( i) Standing "[S]tanding focuses on the issue of who may bring an action." Id. at 851 (citing Barshop v. Medina Cnty. 2012They also contend that the claims of Mo-min, Yogi, and Rokhti are subject .to the redundant remedies doctrine. (i) Standing “[Standing focuses on the issue of who may bring an action.” Id. at 851 (citing Barshop v. Medina Cnty. | 3 | 2012–2012 |
J. Ray (Tex) Riley v. Commissioners Court of Blanco County, Texas Paul Granberg Bill Guthrie Chris Leismann James Sultemeier And John F. Wood
green
2 sentences2021In that case, the court explained that, under the redundant remedies doctrine, courts do not have jurisdiction over a claim brought under the UDJA against a governmental entity “when the same claim could be pursued through different channels.” See [id.] at 79; see also EMCF Partners[, LLC v. Travis Cty., No. 03-15-00820-CV], 2017 WL 672457 , at *6–7 [(Tex. App.— Austin Feb. 15, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)] (applying Patel to conclude redundant remedies doctrine stood as additional bar to UDJA claim where plaintiff did not rely on “procedural vehicles and their concomitant statutory waivers of im 2017In that case, the court explained that, under the redundant remedies doctrine, courts do not have jurisdiction over a claim brought under the UDJA against a governmental entity "when the same claim could be pursued through different channels." See 469 S.W.3d at 79 ; see also EMCF Partners , 2017 WL 672457 , at *6-7, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1261 , at *19-22 (applying Patel to conclude redundant remedies doctrine stood as additional bar to UDJA claim where plaintiff did not rely on "procedural vehicles and their concomitant statutory waivers of immunity" but "instead [relied] solely on the UDJA"); | 2 | 2017–2021 |
Andrade v. NAACP of Austin
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Elsa v. M.A.L.
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bennett v. Spear
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners v. Gene Giggleman, DVM
green
1 sentence2025Exam’rs v. Giggleman, 408 S.W.3d 696 , 707–08 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction to award attorneys’ RESPONSE OF APPELLEE MIKE MORATH, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF TEXAS Case No. 15-24-00051-CV Page 10 of 16 fees under the UDJA because attorneys’ fees are already provided for in the Public Information Act). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Book People, Incorporated v. Wong
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. Seely
green
2 sentences2025Code § 12.0025. 138 Appellees’ Br., 49–50. 139 See Tex. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Seely, 764 S.W.2d 806 , 811–15 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, writ denied). 26 Put simply, Plaintiffs cited no authority supporting their view that the limit on redundant remedies is really no limit at all, as it can be bypassed merely by changing the word “void” to “reverse.” This Court should find that the redundant remedies doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ request to reverse the order terminating Champion’s contract and disqualifying its principals. 2025Code § 12.0025. 138 Appellees’ Br., 49–50. 139 See Tex. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Seely, 764 S.W.2d 806 , 811–15 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, writ denied). 26 Put simply, Plaintiffs cited no authority supporting their view that the limit on redundant remedies is really no limit at all, as it can be bypassed merely by changing the word “void” to “reverse.” This Court should find that the redundant remedies doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ request to reverse the order terminating Champion’s contract and disqualifying its principals. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Floyd D. Arrington v. County of Dallas, Jack Richardson, Timothy Hammond v. County of Dallas, Jack Richardson and Rick Richardson
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bishop v. Wood
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bledsoe v. City of Horn Lake MS
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
in Re Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Texas, Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brittingham v. Ayala
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Beaumont v. Bouillion
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Austin v. Ken Paxton
green
1 sentence2025Appellees’ takings claim is facially valid. ................................ 51 v Prayer ...................................................................................................... 57 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 24 Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ....................... 27 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) .............................................. 32 Arrington v. City of Dallas, 970 F. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Texas Department of Public Safety v. Salazar green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, in His Official Capacity The Texas State Board of Education And the Texas Education Agency v. the Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition Calhoun County Isd Edgewood Isd Fort Bend Isd Texas Charter School Association And Joyce Coleman green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| The Edwards Aquifer Authority and the State of Texas v. Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Ex parte Springsteen green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| City of San Antonio v. BSR Water Co. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.