Texas Department of Transportation v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc.

39 S.W.3d 220, 2000 WL 33146432
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedApril 5, 2001
Docket99-1070
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 39 S.W.3d 220 (Texas Department of Transportation v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc.) 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
Texas Department of Transportation v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 220, 2000 WL 33146432 (Tex. 2001).

Opinions

Justice BAKER

delivered the opinion of the Court

in which Chief Justice PHILLIPS, Justice HECHT, Justice OWEN, Justice ABBOTT, and Justice HANKINSON joined.

The issue in this case involves whether the State may waive its immunity from suit by its conduct. The court of appeals held that by accepting benefits under a contract the State waives its immunity from suit. 997 S.W.2d 687, 692. We disagree. Today in General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 [221]*221S.W.3d 591 (Tex.2001), we declined to adopt a waiver-by-conduct exception to sovereign immunity because the Legislature has established an administrative process for resolving certain breach-of-contract claims against the State. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2260.001-.108. Accordingly, we hold that Aer-Aerotron may not pursue its claim against the State without first participating in Chapter 2260’s administrative process. See Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d at 595. The trial court properly dismissed Aer-Aerotron’s suit. We therefore reverse the courts of appeals’ judgment and dismiss Aer-Aero-tron’s claim for want of jurisdiction.

Justice ENOCH filed a dissenting opinion. Justice O’NEILL did not participate in the decision.

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

Related

Midland Central Appraisal District v. Plains Marketing, L.P.
202 S.W.3d 469 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Robinson v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
171 S.W.3d 365 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Southern Disposal, Inc. v. City of Blossom
165 S.W.3d 887 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Loutzenhiser
140 S.W.3d 351 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Smith v. Lutz
149 S.W.3d 752 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
127 S.W.3d 339 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Catalina Development, Inc. v. County of El Paso
121 S.W.3d 704 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
77 S.W.3d 246 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Texas a & M University-Kingsville v. Lawson
87 S.W.3d 518 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
74 S.W.3d 849 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 S.W.3d 220, 2000 WL 33146432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-department-of-transportation-v-aer-aerotron-inc-tex-2001.