City of Texarkana v. Cities of New Boston

Texas Supreme Court

City of Texarkana v. Cities of New Boston

228 S.W.3d 648, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 988, 2007 WL 2067754

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 2007

Docket04-0797

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 S.W.3d 648 (City of Texarkana v. Cities of New Boston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Texarkana v. Cities of New Boston, 228 S.W.3d 648, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 988, 2007 WL 2067754 (Tex. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The City of New Boston and six other cities 1 sued the City of Texarkana, d/b/a Texarkana Water Facilities, on tort and contract claims arising out of a series of water-supply agreements. The trial court denied Texarkana’s motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity, and the court of appeals reversed as to the tort claims but affirmed as to the contract claims, holding that section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waived Texarkana’s immunity from suit on contract. 141 S.W.3d 778, 782-89 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004). Texarkana petitioned for review, and the plaintiffs filed a conditional petition for review.

The court of appeals’ holding on section 51.075 conflicts with our decision in Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex.2006), which issued after Texarkana filed its petition for review, and we disapprove it. But as we explained in Tooke, while that case was pending on appeal (as was this one) the Legislature enacted sections 271.151-.160 of the Texas Local Government Code, retroactively waiving, with cer *649 tain limitations, immunity from suit for contract claims against local governmental entities. Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 344-45. Following our decisions in Tooke and Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320, 327-328 (Tex.2006), the plaintiff cities requested that Texarkana’s petition be denied so that they can proceed on their contract claims under sections 271.151-.160 of the Texas Local Government Code.

Accordingly, Texarkana’s petition for review and the plaintiff cities’ conditional petition for review are denied.

1

. City of Hooks, City of DeKalb, City of Wake Village, City of Maud, City of Avery, and City of Annona.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The City of New Boston and six other cities 1 sued the City of Texarkana, d/b/a Texarkana Water Facilities, on tort and contract claims arising out of a series of water-supply agreements. The trial court denied Texarkana’s motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity, and the court of appeals reversed as to the tort claims but affirmed as to the contract claims, holding that section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waived Texarkana’s immunity from suit on contract. 141 S.W.3d 778, 782-89 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004). Texarkana petitioned for review, and the plaintiffs filed a conditional petition for review.

The court of appeals’ holding on section 51.075 conflicts with our decision in Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex.2006), which issued after Texarkana filed its petition for review, and we disapprove it. But as we explained in Tooke, while that case was pending on appeal (as was this one) the Legislature enacted sections 271.151-.160 of the Texas Local Government Code, retroactively waiving, with cer *649 tain limitations, immunity from suit for contract claims against local governmental entities. Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 344-45. Following our decisions in Tooke and Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320, 327-328 (Tex.2006), the plaintiff cities requested that Texarkana’s petition be denied so that they can proceed on their contract claims under sections 271.151-.160 of the Texas Local Government Code.

Accordingly, Texarkana’s petition for review and the plaintiff cities’ conditional petition for review are denied.

1

. City of Hooks, City of DeKalb, City of Wake Village, City of Maud, City of Avery, and City of Annona.

William Sciscoe, Denise Sciscoe, Eric Dow, Angela Dow, Robert Draper, Michelle Draper, John Harris, Kimberly Harris, Charles Pegg, Geraldine Pegg, Cody Petree, Alice Randall, Johnny Reames, Jeannette Reames, Margaret Wagner, Jane Wagner, and Town of DISH v. Enbridge Gathering (North Texas) L.P., Atmos Energy Corporation, Energy Transfer Fuel, L.P., Enterprise Texas Pipeline, L.L.C., Texas Midstream Gas Services, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.W.3d 648, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 988, 2007 WL 2067754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-texarkana-v-cities-of-new-boston-tex-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack