State v. Holland
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Opinion by
Justice RODRIGUEZ.
Appellants, the State of Texas, the Texas General Land Office, and the Texas Land Commissioner, bring this accelerated interlocutory appeal following the trial court’s denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. 1 Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction because (1) appellee, Herbert Holland, failed to adequately plead a cause of action for inverse condemnation; and (2) the State acted under color of contract, and therefore, no takings claims can be brought as a matter of law. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control BoardTexas Supreme Court · 1993
- Bland Independent School District v. BlueTexas Supreme Court · 2000
- County of Cameron v. BrownTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- Federal Sign v. Texas Southern UniversityTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Texas Southern University v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2007
- City of San Antonio v. El Dorado Amusement Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2006
- Texas Southern University v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2007
- Texas Southern University v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2007
- Texas Southern University v. State Street Bank and Trust Company, CMS Viron Corporation, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.