No. 14-0079
Click for Official Page
The Court requested full merits briefing on May 2, 2014. The Court denied review of the petition on October 24, 2014. File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
October 27, 2014
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:The Court has not issued any opinions in this case.
| Appellate District: | 4th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
| COA Docket No.: | 04-13-00108-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Rebeca C. Martinez |
| Trial Court: | 216th District Court |
| County: | Kendall |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable William R. Palmer |
| Trial Docket: | 12-502 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-12-29 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | ||
| 2014-12-19 | Motion to dismiss disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-12-19 | Granted Petition for Review disposed | Dismissed | |
| 2014-12-17 | Motion to dismiss filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-12-08 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | ||
| 2014-12-03 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-10-27 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-10-24 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2014-10-24 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-10-24 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2014-09-09 | Amicus Curiae Brief received (Amicus Curiae) | ||
| 2014-08-27 | Reply brief filed | ||
| 2014-08-13 | Reply brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-07-30 | Brief filed (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-07-10 | Brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-07-01 | Motion to Consolidate disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-06-26 | Motion to Consolidate filed (Joint motion filed) | ||
| 2014-06-17 | Call received (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-06-17 | Motion for extension of time to file brief. (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-06-17 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. (Respondent) | Filing granted | |
| 2014-06-02 | Brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-05-15 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2014-05-14 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2014-05-05 | Notice received (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-05-02 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2014-03-13 | Reply filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-03-04 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2014-02-27 | Response to Petition for Review filed (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-02-21 | Additional citations received. (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-01-28 | Petition for Review filed (Petitioner) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| City of Boerne, Texas |
|
Respondent | |||||||||
| Lower Colorado River Authority |
|
Petitioner |
| Amicus Curiae | Counsel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Municipal League and Texas City Attorneys Association |
|
||
| Texas Civil Justice League |
|
||
| The City of Dallas |
|
The question is whether suit can be brought against the City for a contract alleged to have been entered in its proprietary (rather than governmental) capacity. The LCRA argues that this category of contract is not covered by immunity and that, if there were any doubt, it has also been waived by statute. The City argues that this proprietary-governmental distinction is inapplicable to contract claims and has also become unworkable in practice.