Hardt v. Texas Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hardt v. Texas Department of Corrections

530 S.W.2d 897, 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 3228

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 19, 1975

Docket12331

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 530 S.W.2d 897 (Hardt v. Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hardt v. Texas Department of Corrections, 530 S.W.2d 897, 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 3228 (Tex. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice.

Appellant brought this suit in Travis County under the provisions of the Texas *898 Tort Claims Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252 — 19) for the death of her husband who was killed in a construction accident in Walker County while in the custody of the Texas Department of Corrections. No motion was made to transfer this case from Travis County to Walker County. The trial court sustained the State’s plea in abatement to the effect that suit must be brought in the county where the injury occurred, and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. We affirm this judgment.

Section 5 of the Texas Tort Claims Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art 6252 — 19) provides that “All cases arising under the provisions of this Act shall be instituted in the county in which the cause of action or a part thereof arises.”

Appellant contends that this provision relates to venue only and is not jurisdictional. In support of this position, she cites Aviation Credit Corporation v. University Aerial Service Corporation, 59 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Civ.App.1933, writ dism’d by agr.). We do not agree. The universal rule of long standing is that since the State may withhold entirely its consent to be sued, it may impose such conditions and limitations thereon as it may deem desirable and that it cannot be sued other than in the courts and places in which it has consented that suit may be maintained against it. State v. Isbell, 127 Tex. 399, 94 S.W.2d 423 (1936, opinion adopted); Martin v. State, 75 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Civ.App.1934, no writ); Gulf Land Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co., 134 Tex. 59, 131 S.W.2d 73 (1939); Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323, 198 S.W.2d 424 (1946).

We hold that the trial court was correct in sustaining appellee’s plea in abatement and in dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction because the suit was filed in a county not authorized by the Texas Tort Claims Act.

Affirmed.

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

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice.

Appellant brought this suit in Travis County under the provisions of the Texas *898 Tort Claims Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252 — 19) for the death of her husband who was killed in a construction accident in Walker County while in the custody of the Texas Department of Corrections. No motion was made to transfer this case from Travis County to Walker County. The trial court sustained the State’s plea in abatement to the effect that suit must be brought in the county where the injury occurred, and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. We affirm this judgment.

Section 5 of the Texas Tort Claims Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art 6252 — 19) provides that “All cases arising under the provisions of this Act shall be instituted in the county in which the cause of action or a part thereof arises.”

Appellant contends that this provision relates to venue only and is not jurisdictional. In support of this position, she cites Aviation Credit Corporation v. University Aerial Service Corporation, 59 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Civ.App.1933, writ dism’d by agr.). We do not agree. The universal rule of long standing is that since the State may withhold entirely its consent to be sued, it may impose such conditions and limitations thereon as it may deem desirable and that it cannot be sued other than in the courts and places in which it has consented that suit may be maintained against it. State v. Isbell, 127 Tex. 399, 94 S.W.2d 423 (1936, opinion adopted); Martin v. State, 75 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Civ.App.1934, no writ); Gulf Land Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co., 134 Tex. 59, 131 S.W.2d 73 (1939); Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323, 198 S.W.2d 424 (1946).

We hold that the trial court was correct in sustaining appellee’s plea in abatement and in dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction because the suit was filed in a county not authorized by the Texas Tort Claims Act.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 S.W.2d 897, 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 3228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardt-v-texas-department-of-corrections-texapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack