State Ex Rel. Texas Department of Transportation v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. D/B/A Antoine Dental Center Dr. Behzad Nazari Harlingen Family Dentistry, P.C. A/K/A Practical Business Solutions, Series LLC Juan D. Villarreal D.D.S., Series PLLC D/B/A Harlingen Family Dentistry Group v. State (Tex. App. 2015)
- The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11 (Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District 2025)
- Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Putnam, LLC (Tex. App. 2009)
- Texas Department of State Health Services and David L. Lakey, M.D., Commissioner v. Nancy Holmes, CLHRP, CME (Tex. App. 2009)
- Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas v. Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. (Tex. App. 2008)
- Alobaidi v. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (Tex. App. 2007)
- Josephine S. Alobaidi v. the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (Tex. App. 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The State sued Precision Solar Controls, Inc. for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and quantum meruit, alleging that traffic signal displays made by Precision were defective. Precision denied the State’s allegations and counterclaimed for damages for business disparagement. The trial court denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, and, on the State’s interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals affirmed. 188 S.W.3d 364 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006).
The court of appeals relied on our first opinion in Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas, which we have since withdrawn and replaced. 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006). We held that a governmental entity that brings an action waives immunity from suit for claims that are germane to, connected with, and properly defensive to its action, to the extent of an offset. Id. at 373. The State argues that it has not by its action waived immunity for an intentional tort claim like Precision’s. Such arguments should be further considered by the lower court in light of Reata.
Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our order denying its petition for review, grant its petition, and, without hearing oral argument, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Tex.R.App. P. 59.1.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.