Legal Opinion
Cole v. Texas Army National Guard
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Decided August 30, 1995No. 03-94-00612-CVPublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POWERS, Justice.
Lieutenant-Colonel Peter C. Cole appeals from a district-court judgment that dismisses for want of subject-matter jurisdiction his actions against the Texas Army National Guard, Adjutant General Sam C. Turk, and two unknown officers of the Texas Army National Guard designated “Richard Roe” and “John Doe.” Concluding the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, we will reverse the judgment below and remand the cause to the district court.
THE CONTROVERSY
The Adjutant General, relying upon sections 431.042(b)(2) and 431.089(a) of the Government Code, and upon a regulation…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sterling v. ConstantinSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Harmon v. BruckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Sexton v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1986
- Foster v. City of WacoTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Cobra Oil & Gas Corporation v. SadlerTexas Supreme Court · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Walch v. Adjutant General's DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
- State Farm Lloyds v. Geeslin, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2008
- Nyberg v. State Military DepartmentWyoming Supreme Court · 2003
- Texas Adjutant General's Department v. Amos, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2001
- Harvey Gough v. State of Texas, Adjutant General's Department General Daniel James Colonel William Goodwin Jane Doe Richard Roe And John Doe, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2002
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.