Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 14, 2011

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

City of N. Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd.,    Nos. 02-10-00224-CV,   02-10-00236-CV    (Feb. 17, 2011)   (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and Gabriel, JJ.).  [Note: Both opinions withdrawn April 28, 2011.]

Held:   The trial courts did not err by denying, in part, Appellant's partial pleas to the jurisdiction because (1) the Development Agreement involved services provided to Appellant by Appellees, meaning Appellant's immunity from suit is waived by local government code section 271.152; (2) the limitation of damages under local government code section 271.153 is not jurisdictional; and (3) Appellees sufficiently pleaded an inverse condemnation claim based on Appellant's alleged deprivation of Appellees' reasonable investment-backed expectations. However, the trial courts erred by failing to grant, in part, Appellant's partial pleas to the jurisdiction because (1) Appellant's immunity from suit has not been waived for Appellees' request for a judicial declaration that Appellant violated certain contractual obligations; (2) Appellees' requests for declaratory relief relating to denial of special use permits must be brought in an ultra vires suit against city officials in their official capacities; (3) Appellees cannot recover attorney's fees for prosecuting requests for declaratory relief over which the trial courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction; and (4) Appellee Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd. does not have standing to challenge Appellant's zoning amendment based on the failure to provide statutorily required notice.

Redden v. Denton County,    No. 02-10-00111-CV    (Feb. 17, 2011)   (McCoy, J., joined by Dauphinot and Meier, JJ.).

Held:   Based on the "use" and "tangible property" requirements to state a claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act, the trial court did not err by granting Denton County's plea to the jurisdiction because Appellants did not allege that the EKG machine itself injured Redden or produced inaccurate information that led to his death; rather, they alleged only that the information produced by the machine was misused by the county's medical staff, and information is not tangible property.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «