State that sovereign immunity in Texas

2024Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex. 1997) (“[A]n action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity 8 bars.”)).

2024Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W. 2d 401, 404 (Tex. 1997) (“[A]n action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars.”); see also Texas Natural Res.

2025Importantly, suits “to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars.” City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Tex. 2009).

2023A. Applicable Law While a waiver of governmental immunity is usually required for suit against a governmental entity, “an action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars.” City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Tex. 2009).

2015See, e.g., Texas Natural Res. 20 Conservation Comm'n v. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002) (“Private parties may seek declaratory relief against state officials who allegedly act without legal or statutory authority.”); Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University, 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex. 1997) (“[A]n action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars.”) A claim under the ultra vieres exception must be brought against the state actors in their offici

2009See Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex.1997) (action to determine or protect private parties’ rights against “a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars”) (citing Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360 , 190 S.W.2d 709, 712 (1945)); see also IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855 .

2009See Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex.1997) (action to determine or protect private parties’ rights against “a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars”) (citing Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360 , 190 S.W.2d 709, 712 (1945)); see also IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855 .

2009See Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex.1997) (action to determine or protect private parties’ rights against “a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars”) (citing Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360 , 190 S.W.2d 709, 712 (1945)); see also IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855 .

2020Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578, 587 (Tex. 2015) (“[A]n action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars.”).

2015Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578, 587 (Tex. 2015) (“[A]n action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars.”).

2025The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that “an action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars.” Id.; cf Tex. Highway Comm’n v. Tex. Ass’n of Steel Imps., Inc., 372 S.W.2d 525, 529-31 (Tex. 1963) (concluding that a suit challenging a Texas Highway Commission’s Minute Order was not against the state because the state agency was acting without statutory authority).

2023Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex. 1997). “[W]e distinguish suits to determine a party’s rights against the State from suits seeking damages.” Id.; see also In re A.C.B., 103 S.W.3d 570, 574 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (concluding trial court had jurisdiction over dispute regarding writ of withholding because “[Father] filed his motion for declaratory judgment within thirty days after meeting with the [OAG].

2015Specifically, citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 841 (Tex. 1992), Defendants assert that the costs to Dr. Jefferson “of having to go through trial and the appellate process does not make the remedy at law inadequate.” 1.CR.458.

2004Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 *9 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex.1997) (noting that private litigant does not need legislative permission to sue State for state official's violations of state law because such violations are not acts of State, so that suit "is not a suit against the State that sovereign immunity bars"; thus concluding that "[a] party can maintain a suit to determine its rights without legislative permission"), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Gen.