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.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Transportation v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2012"Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction." Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 225 -26 (citing Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Jones , 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex. 1999)). 2012“Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial- court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225 -26 (citing Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex.1999)). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Jordengreen2 sentences2013See In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding); cf. Ross Stores, Inc. v. Redken Labs., Inc., 810 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.1991) (noting that under predecessor rule to 202(b), order was final and appealable when “against third parties against whom suits are not contemplated ... acting as mandatory injunctions against the discovery defendant”). 2013See In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); cf. Ross Stores, Inc. v. Redken Labs., Inc., 810 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex. 1991) (noting that under predecessor rule to 202(b), order was final and appealable when “against third parties against whom suits are not contemplated . . . acting as mandatory injunctions against the discovery defendant”). | 2 | 2 |
Ross Stores, Inc. v. Redken Laboratories, Inc.green2 sentences2013See In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding); cf. Ross Stores, Inc. v. Redken Labs., Inc., 810 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.1991) (noting that under predecessor rule to 202(b), order was final and appealable when “against third parties against whom suits are not contemplated ... acting as mandatory injunctions against the discovery defendant”). 2013See In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); cf. Ross Stores, Inc. v. Redken Labs., Inc., 810 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex. 1991) (noting that under predecessor rule to 202(b), order was final and appealable when “against third parties against whom suits are not contemplated . . . acting as mandatory injunctions against the discovery defendant”). | 2 | 2 |
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlifegreen1 sentence2022See Heckman, 8 In their plea to the jurisdiction, the State Defendants did not challenge the existence of any of the underlying facts alleged in the School District Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors’ pleadings. 9 The State Defendants also separately asserted that the three parents lack standing because their “alleged injuries are more remote and speculative than the [school districts’]” and that their injury is “a quintessential generalized grievance.” On appeal, the State Defendants have not challenged the trial court’s jurisdictional ruling as to the three parents. 17 369 S.W.3d at 154 -55 (citing | 1 | 1 |
Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson Countygreen1 sentence2022See Heckman, 8 In their plea to the jurisdiction, the State Defendants did not challenge the existence of any of the underlying facts alleged in the School District Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors’ pleadings. 9 The State Defendants also separately asserted that the three parents lack standing because their “alleged injuries are more remote and speculative than the [school districts’]” and that their injury is “a quintessential generalized grievance.” On appeal, the State Defendants have not challenged the trial court’s jurisdictional ruling as to the three parents. 17 369 S.W.3d at 154 -55 (citing | 1 | 1 |
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Boardgreen1 sentence2012See Texas' Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 446 . | 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 Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda
green
2 sentences2012"Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction." Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 225 -26 (citing Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Jones , 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex. 1999)). 2012“Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial- court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225 -26 (citing Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex.1999)). | 3 | 2012–2012 |
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.