Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda

26 citing decisions · 23 quoted from the citing opinion itself

Where each one reaches back.

Every passage below is lifted verbatim out of the citing opinion, with the citation itself highlighted. Nothing here is a summary and nothing is generated — it is what the later court actually wrote.

• Jessie Goodfellow v. City of North Richland Hills, T. Oscar Trevino, Jr., Billy Parks, Cecille Delaney, Ricky Rodriguez, Danny Roberts, Matt Blake, Ru2026-06-25
  …t to Life v. Van Stean, 702 S.W.3d 348, 352 (Tex. 2024). Unless the State consents to suit, sovereign immunity deprives a trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction against the State or certain governmental units. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004) (op. on reh’g). Cities are political subdivisions of the State and, absent waiver, are similarly entitled to governmental immunity.6 Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex. 2006) (op. on reh’g). Governmental immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and is properly asse…
• City of Keller v. Michael DiPaolo2026-06-25
  …of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 637–38 (Tex. 1999). The trial court may rule on the plea as a matter of law if the relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227–28 (Tex. 2004). When the plea challenges jurisdictional facts, the standard of review will mirror that of a traditional summary judgment; if the plaintiff’s factual allegations are challenged with supporting evidence necessary to the consideration of the plea, the plaintiff must raise at least a genuine issue of material fact to overc…
• Texas Department of Public Safety v. Aldo Samuel Sosa, as Wrongful Death Beneficiary of Carmen Huerta Sosa, and Samuel Lloyd, III, as Wrongful Death B2026-06-25
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• the State of Texas // Patrick Cox, for Himself and as Agent for AOC Ranches, LLC; Team Advertising Services, Inc.; CCLHR Enterprises, LLC; And VPizza 2026-06-25
  …them. 5 the pleadings, we look to whether the plaintiff “has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause.” Id. (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004)). We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff, accepting all allegations as true. Id. The plaintiff bears the burden to allege facts that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. When a plea to the jurisdiction implicates the merits of the plaintiff’s case and inclu…
• Turner Solari and Lorenn Solari v. Comal Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board of Comal County2026-06-25
  …and dismissed the Solaris’ claims against it for lack of jurisdiction. Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004). A plea to the jurisdiction often may be determined solely from the pleadings. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554-55 (Tex. 2000) (“A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, the purpose of which is to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit.”). We review the…
• In Re Andes Global Trading, LLC, Smithfield Foods, Inc., Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., Smithfield Fresh Meats Sales Corp., and Smithfield Direct LLC v2026-06-24
  …7 conclude that this delay in ruling is objectively unreasonable. 3 Jurisdictional determinations, such as rulings on special appearances, should be made “as soon as practicable.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex. 2004). In this regard, this Court and others have conditionally granted mandamus relief for far more abbreviated delays in ruling on special appearances. See In re ADUSA Transp. LLC, 2025 WL 1351539, at *3 (granting relief for a three-month delay in ruling on a special appearance); In re Nomarco, Inc., No. 14-20-00129-CV, 2020 W…
• Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. Savergv, Sierra Club, and carrizo/comecrudo Nation of Texas, Inc.2026-06-19
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gen2026-06-18
  …3, 115 (Tex. 2010); Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 694 n.3 (Tex. 2003) Because the assertion of immunity implicates the court’s jurisdiction, it is properly raised by a plea to the jurisdiction. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225–26 (Tex. 2004). A plea to the jurisdiction is a procedural mechanism through which a party may challenge the court’s authority to decide a case without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). Because whether a trial court has jurisdiction is a question of law, we r…
• Texas Military Department v. Norma Uresti-Marin, Individually and A/N/F A.S., a Minor2026-06-11
  …al facts. Jones v. Turner, 646 S.W.3d 319, 325 (Tex. 2022). When reviewing pleadings, we must “determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). We construe pleadings liberally in favor of the pleader and a plaintiff “should be afforded the opportunity to amend” if the challenged jurisdictional defect may be cured with further factual allegations. Tex. Tech. Univ. Sys. v. Martinez, 691 S.W.3d 415, 419 (Tex. 2024). “[W]e will grant a plea to the jurisdiction withou…
• John Alan Conroy v. David Sloan2026-06-05
  …AIMS Several standards of review apply to Conroy’s various claims. First, an appellate court reviewing a challenge to a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction reviews the trial court’s ruling de novo. Tex. Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). Second, a trial court’s denial of a motion for default judgment is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Davis v. West, 433 S.W.3d 101, 108 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Lastly, whether allegations brought against an attorney and labeled as a breach of fiduciary duty claim are actually prof…
• Nariocan Enterprises LLC D/B/A Cantu's Pharmacy v. the Texas Health and Human Services Commission2026-06-04
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Texas Cordia Construction, LLC v. Deanira Cantu, Pablo Rubalcaba, Domingo Pena, Jr., Janet Pena, Monica Cavazos, Juanita 'Janie' and Roman Rodriguez, 2026-06-04
  …547, 554 (Tex. 2000). “[S]overeign immunity deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction for lawsuits in which the state or certain governmental units have been sued[,] unless the state consents to suit.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004). If, as in this case, a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties that is necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues. Id. at 227. We take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and we indulge every reasonable inference and…
• Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners v. Katherin Youniacutt and Tammy Thompson2026-06-04
  …STANDARD OF REVIEW AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea that challenges the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction without regard to whether the asserted claims have merit. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law, City of Conroe v. San Jacinto River Auth., 602 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. 2020), and we review a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo, Hous. Belt & Terminal Ry. v. City of Hous., 487 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. 2016). The burden is on the plaintiff to af…
• City of Edinburg v. Texas Cordia Construction, LLC2026-06-04
  …al facts. Jones v. Turner, 646 S.W.3d 319, 325 (Tex. 2022). When reviewing pleadings, we must “determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Pleadings are construed liberally in favor of the pleader and the pleader “should be afforded the opportunity to amend” if the challenged jurisdictional defect may be cured with further factual allegations. Tex. Tech. Univ. Sys. v. Martinez, 691 S.W.3d 415, 419 (Tex. 2024). “[W]e will grant a plea to the jurisdiction with…
• Joseph Mugisha v. Brianna McLeod2026-05-29
  …ly Code is a question of law that we review de novo.”); Saavedra v. Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533, 541 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); see Sampson v. University of Tex. at Aus., 500 S.W.3d 380, 384 (Tex. 2016) (citing Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225–26 (Tex. 2004)). The party who initiates the suit has the burden to allege facts affirmatively demonstrating the trial court’s authority to hear the case. Cortez v. Cortez, 639 S.W.3d 298, 306 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). “We construe the pleadings in favor of the party invoking jurisdiction and consider relevant…
• African American Historic Preservation Committee, Inc. v. State of Texas and City of Texas City2026-05-28
  …jurisdiction by a governmental unit. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8). 8 plaintiff to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). A party may challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction either on the pleadings or by evidence negating jurisdictional facts. Id. We first consider whether the plaintiff’s petition alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction. Id.; see also Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 150 (“[O]ur [juri…
• City of Houston v. Shamaka T. Barfield2026-05-28
  …that demonstrate affirmatively the court’s jurisdiction to hear her claims. Town of Shady Shores v. Swanson, 590 S.W.3d 544, 550 (Tex. 2019). “Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 2 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(8). 3 (Tex. 2004). Because the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, we review the trial court’s ruling on the City’s motion for summary judgment de novo. See Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. P…
• City of San Antonio; San Antonio Police Department; Joe Vidal, Individually and in His Official Capacity; And Daniel Moynihan, Individually and in His2026-05-27
  …erde Spring Branch Emergency Servs., 559 S.W.3d 613, 618 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, no pet.). If the evidence is undisputed or does not raise a fact question, the trial court rules on the plea as a matter of law. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). However, if the evidence raises a fact question on the jurisdictional issue, “then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the fact finder.” Id. at 227–28. Appellate Jurisdiction In their appellate briefing, the Mart…
• Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas v. the City of Austin and Austin Transit Partnership Local Government Corporation2026-05-22
  …o v. Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex. 2008). A court “must determine at its earliest opportunity whether it has the constitutional or statutory authority to decide the case before allowing the litigation to proceed.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). There is no discretion to ignore or side-step this obligation, and a court “may not move to the merits if even one jurisdictional argument remains unresolved.” Rattray v. City of Brownsville, 662 S.W.3d 860, 869 (Tex. 2023). The approach taken below ran afoul of these basic principles. Proceeding to trial without fir…
• Max Curry, Jr. and Angela Sneed-Curry, A/N/F C.J.C., a Minor v. Shawn Dally, Brian White, Natasa Wroblski, and Katie Gordon2026-05-14
  …at they did not sufficiently plead an ultra vires claim. We therefore will not address each issue individually. Standard of review and applicable law We review de novo a trial court’s jurisdictional ruling. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). When a defendant challenges whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to waive immunity, as the Employees have here, we liberally construe the pleadings in the plaintiff’s favor, considering all factual assertions to be true and looking to the plaintiff’s intent.4 Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just. v. Rangel, 595 S.…
• City of Shenandoah, Texas v. Law Office of Frank Powell & Frank C. Powell2026-05-14
  …sed the chance to sue the governmental unit.” (internal citation omitted)). As a result of the City’s immunity from suit, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Powell’s suit against the City. See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004) (stating sovereign immunity deprives trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over lawsuits in which state or certain governmental units have been sued absent consent to suit). We hold that the trial court erred in denying the City’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we sustain the City’s issue.9…
• Dominique Cunningham v. Teneshia Hudspeth2026-05-14
  …s that demonstrate affirmatively the court’s jurisdiction to hear her claims. Town of Shady Shores v. Swanson, 590 S.W.3d 544, 550 (Tex. 2019). Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). attorney. See Cause No. 2024-77884, Cunningham v. Hidalgo, In the 125th District Court of Harris County, Texas. According to Hudspeth’s plea to the jurisdiction, the latter case was dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. 7 Cunningham s…
• Pradera SFR v. American Housing Ventures2026-05-12
  …o preview their case on the merits but to establish a reason why the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims should never be reached. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); see also Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). As in this case: [W]hen a defendant asserts that the amount in controversy is below the court’s jurisdictional limit, the plaintiff’s pleadings are determinative unless the defendant specifically alleges that the amount was pleaded merely as a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining jurisdict…
• Ryan Busse, Josh Klostermann, Russel Klostermann, Layne Klostermann, Mitch Thomas, Olivia Rincones, Robert Rincones, Ruben Rincones, Enrica Rincones, 2026-05-08
  …. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 770 (Tex. 2018). When a jurisdictional plea challenges the pleadings, courts determine whether the plaintiff pleaded facts that affirmatively demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). In ascertaining whether jurisdiction exists, we “construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and look to the 3 STISD did not raise the political question doctrine in the trial court. But because the “political question doctrine is an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction,” Van Dorn Preston v. M1…
• Stephenson2026-05-08
  …esults.’” 17 Courts must presume that the Legislature chose its words “with care, including each word chosen for a purpose, while purposefully omitting words not 13 Id. ¶¶ 46, 49, 708 S.W.3d at 242–43 (citing Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 223– 24 (Tex. 2004); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000)); M&M Livestock, LLC v. Robinson, 2025 Tex Bus. 29, ¶ 21, 2025 WL 2207943, at *4 (8th Div.) (mem. op.). 14 C Ten, ¶¶ 46, 49, 708 S.W.3d at 242–43. 15 Def.’s Mot. 3. 16 Colo. Cnty. v. Staff, 510 S.W.3d 435, 444 (Tex. 2017). 17 Slant Operating, L…
• Texas Association of Counties Risk Management Pool v. Dianna Adams, as Surviving Spouse of Neil Adams2026-05-07
  …subject-matter jurisdiction exists due to waiver of immunity is a question of law, and we review the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007); Tex. Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). 6 A county is a political subdivision of the state. See Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. Pol. Subdivisions Prop./Cas. Joint Self-Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320, 324 (Tex. 2006). Both parties acknowledge San Jacinto County was Neil’s employer. Chapter 50…