6 results for 'cat:"Government" AND cat:"Immunity" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Russel finds the lower court improperly concluded that sovereign immunity barred the successor's claims. The Virginia Department of Transportation contracted a contractor for construction inspection and permitted them to bill VDOT for certain overhead costs, including the cost of rental vehicles. Because of the nature of the projects at issue, VDOT, in turn, could seek reimbursement from the federal government for the expenses it reimbursed so long as VDOT complied with Federal Acquisition Regulation provisions. The FAR clauses purportedly did not allow VDOT to receive reimbursement for expenses paid to the successor, an entity under its common control. The parties eventually mediated the claims and agreed upon a settlement agreement that the contractor felt it had no choice, given its economic situation, but to sign. It later received information previously withheld that led to the suit, filed in part to invalidate the settlement agreement. Sovereign immunity doesn’t apply to claims based on express contracts. Reversed.
Court: Virginia Supreme Court, Judge: Russel , Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 230365, Categories: government, immunity, contract
J. Byrne finds that the trial court improperly ruled against a public charter school, denying its plea to the jurisdiction in a breach of contract case filed by a law firm accusing the school of failing to pay for legal services. The law firm failed to show that the contract was ratified by the school board, thus establishing a waiver of immunity. Because such a waiver has not been established, the school's jurisdictional plea should have been granted and the law firm's claims dismissed. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Byrne, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 03-22-00200-CV, Categories: government, immunity, contract
Per curiam, the Texas Supreme Court vacates the court of appeals' judgment in a governmental immunity case in which a contractor claimed that the city of Hutto failed to pay it after its work was complete. The court of appeals agreed with the city's assertion that the contractor's claims were barred by governmental immunity because the contract signed between the parties was not properly completed. However, due to the Texas legislature's recent passage of a bill requiring governmental entities to notify contractors of failures to properly complete the contract process before beginning work, the case must be remanded to the trial court for further consideration.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 22-0973, Categories: government, immunity, contract
J. Marion finds a lower court erred in denying the San Antonio Water System’s plea to the jurisdiction and claims of governmental immunity after it sued a contractor and its insurer for breach of contract related to a public works project and then was countersued by the insurer. While the water system acknowledges that it can be sued for breach of contract, and that that claim is thus still pending, the system is right that other claims, such as for “improper release of contract funds,” must fail on immunity grounds, including because the water system did not enter a contract directly with the insurer. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Marion, Filed On: January 3, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00123-CV, Categories: government, immunity, contract
J. Boyd finds the court of appeals properly ruled against the City of League City in a breach of contract case brought by a restaurant chain, in which it accused the city of failing to adhere to an agreement that would provide financial incentives for building a new restaurant in the city limits. The trial court and court of appeals denied the city’s jurisdictional plea to the suit, leading it to file a petition for review. Because the agreement was entered into on discretionary terms and does not serve a public service, the city is not entitled to governmental immunity. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Boyd, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 21-0307, Categories: government, immunity, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
Per curiam, the Texas Supreme Court finds the court of appeals improperly ruled in favor of Texas Southern University in a breach of contract case brought against it by a construction firm. After the University refused to pay the firm for a project it completed after the construction deadline had passed, the firm brought its breach of contract claim. While the university is privileged to immunity, it is not immune in this case. The construction firm presented sufficient evidence of a cognizable injury. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 21-0966, Categories: government, immunity, contract