Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

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

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 S.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-Aerotron's claim for want of jurisdiction.

Justice Enoch filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice O'Neill did not participate in the decision.

Justice Enoch, dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in my dissent in General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Company, I respectfully dissent.

39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TEXAS DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION v. AER-AEROTRON
(Apr 5, 2001)