Tex. Codes » Local Government Code · TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY · SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT · CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Texas Codes

Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 271.151. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(1) "Adjudication" of a claim means the bringing of a civil suit and prosecution to final judgment in county or state court and includes the bringing of an authorized arbitration proceeding and prosecution to final resolution in accordance with any mandatory procedures established in the contract subject to this subchapter for the arbitration proceedings.

(2) "Contract subject to this subchapter" means:

(A) a written contract stating the essential terms of the agreement for providing goods or services to the local governmental entity that is properly executed on behalf of the local governmental entity; or

(B) a written contract, including a right of first refusal, regarding the sale or delivery of not less than 1,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water by a local governmental entity intended for industrial use.

(3) "Local governmental entity" means a political subdivision of this state, other than a county or a unit of state government, as that term is defined by Section 2260.001, Government Code, including a:

(A) municipality;

(B) public school district and junior college district; and

(C) special-purpose district or authority, including any levee improvement district, drainage district, irrigation district, water improvement district, water control and improvement district, water control and preservation district, freshwater supply district, navigation district, conservation and reclamation district, soil conservation district, communication district, public health district, emergency service organization, and river authority.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 604 (H.B. 2039), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

Amended by:

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1138 (H.B. 3511), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases, 2006–2019 · leading case: Hays Street Bridge Restoration Grp. v. City of San Antonio, 570 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hays Street Bridge Restoration Grp. v. City of San Antonio, 570 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2019). · cites it 4× “1 Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151 -.160. 2 This case centers on a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2002.”
Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Political Subdivisions Prop./Cas. Jt. Self-Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. 2006). · cites it 2× “TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.151(2), .152. The Fund next contends Section 271.”
LTTS Charter Sch., Inc. v. C2 Constr., Inc., 342 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2011). · cites it 2× “See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.151(3). Rather, it is limited to a list of entities nearly identical to those found in section 101.”
Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Friendswood Dev. Co., Ltd., 256 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.152. Under this statutory regime, once the prerequisites for waiver of immunity are shown to be satisfied, all claims for breach of the contract in question are subject to the Legislature’s waiver of immunity.”
City of Denton v. Brian Rushing, Calvin Patterson & Kevin Marshall, 570 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2019). · cites it 3× “See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.151(2)(A) (defining what contracts are "subject to this subchapter").”
Donna Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gracia, 286 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “" TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 271.151(2). In this case, a review of the contract in general and, specifically, the provision that Gracia claims the District breached, is clearly not a written contract for goods or services provided to the District.”
Eric D. Hillman v. Nueces Cnty., Texas & Nueces Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Off., 579 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. 2019). “108 (providing procedures for resolving certain contract claims against units of state government); Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151 -.160 (waiving immunity for certain contract claims against local governmental entities).”
Schriver v. Texas Dep't of Transp., 293 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 271.151 -.152 (Vernon 2005); Singer at 795 n.”
Tara Partners, Ltd. v. City of South Houston, 282 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. App. 2009). “[5] See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 271.151 (2), .”
Kansas City S. v. Port of Corpus Christi Auth., 305 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “*306 See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 271.151 (3) (Vernon 2005).”
City of Mesquite v. PKG Contracting, Inc., 263 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App. 2008). “Because we have held that the City was immune from suit on the Tookes’ claim that arose before the effective date of HB 2039, its immunity is waived only to the extent provided by that statute.”
Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 359 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “" See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151, 271.152; Clear Lake City Water Auth.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151(2) — 8 cases
Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Political Subdivisions Prop./Cas. Jt. Self-Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. 2006). “TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.151(2), .152. The Fund next contends Section 271.”
Hays Street Bridge Restoration Grp. v. City of San Antonio, 570 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2019). “1 Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151 -.160. 2 This case centers on a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2002.”
Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Friendswood Dev. Co., Ltd., 256 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App. 2008). “” Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.152. Under this statutory regime, once the prerequisites for waiver of immunity are shown to be satisfied, all claims for breach of the contract in question are subject to the Legislature’s waiver of immunity.”
Donna Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gracia, 286 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App. 2008). “" TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 271.151(2). In this case, a review of the contract in general and, specifically, the provision that Gracia claims the District breached, is clearly not a written contract for goods or services provided to the District.”
Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 359 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App. 2011). “" See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151, 271.152; Clear Lake City Water Auth.”
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151(2)(A) — 3 cases
City of Denton v. Brian Rushing, Calvin Patterson & Kevin Marshall, 570 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2019). “See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.151(2)(A) (defining what contracts are "subject to this subchapter").”
Hays Street Bridge Restoration Grp. v. City of San Antonio, 570 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2019). “1 Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151 -.160. 2 This case centers on a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2002.”
City of San Antonio v. Hays St. Bridge Restoration Grp., 551 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. App. 2017).
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151(2)(B) — 1 case
Hays Street Bridge Restoration Grp. v. City of San Antonio, 570 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2019). “1 Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151 -.160. 2 This case centers on a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2002.”
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151(3) — 1 case
LTTS Charter Sch., Inc. v. C2 Constr., Inc., 342 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2011). “See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.151(3). Rather, it is limited to a list of entities nearly identical to those found in section 101.”
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151(3)(B) — 1 case
Donna Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gracia, 286 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App. 2008). “" TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 271.151(2). In this case, a review of the contract in general and, specifically, the provision that Gracia claims the District breached, is clearly not a written contract for goods or services provided to the District.”
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151(c) — 1 case
Donna Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gracia, 286 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App. 2008). “" TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 271.151(2). In this case, a review of the contract in general and, specifically, the provision that Gracia claims the District breached, is clearly not a written contract for goods or services provided to the District.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.