6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Authoritygreen2 sentences2012The supreme court recently described the reserved powers doctrine as follows: Certain powers are conferred on government entities "for public purposes, and can neither be delegated nor bartered away.” Government entities cannot "cede ... away [such powers] through contracts with others so as to disable them from the performance of their public duties.” Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex.2010) (citations omitted). 2 . 2012Code Ann. § 51.014 (a)(8) (West Supp. 2012). 1 The supreme court recently described the reserved powers doctrine as follows: Certain powers are conferred on government entities ―for public purposes, and can neither be delegated nor bartered away.‖ Government entities cannot ―cede . . . away [such powers] through contracts with others so as to disable them from the performance of their public duties.‖ Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex. 2010) (citations omitted). 2 The parties entered into a rule 11 agreement whereby the District agreed not to transfe | 5 | 6 |
Clear Lake City Water Authority v. Kirby Lake Development, Ltd.green1 sentence2011Co. , 123 S.W.3d 735, 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). [5] The contract interpretation issue, as well as the Authority’s plea to the jurisdiction, the Authority’s reserved powers doctrine issue, and the Developers’ takings issue, were all decided by the Supreme Court in its Kirby Lake opinion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
green
1 sentence2012We must therefore decide whether Providence Village‘s request for a validity determination of the 2005 agreement falls within the scope of the authorities holding that a request for declaratory relief that seeks ―to establish a contract‘s validity‖ is barred by governmental immunity. 11 See IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855–56; W.D. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.