§

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.057

Section 101.057 - Civil Disobedience and Certain Intentional Torts
Section 101.057 - Civil Disobedience and Certain Intentional Torts

8 Citing briefs

  1. May et al v. Andres et al

    Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Second MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed March 31, 2017

    See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.057(2). Texas and federal courts have repeatedly held that similar police conduct fell within the intentional torts exception.

  2. Udeigwe v. Texas Tech University

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed March 14, 2017

    The claims would also be barred because the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for intentional torts. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.057(2) (“This chapter does not apply to a claim … arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort . . . .”). As its name implies, tortious interference with a contract is an intentional tort.

  3. Udeigwe v. Texas Tech University

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed January 25, 2017

    The claims would also be barred because the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for intentional torts. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.057(2) (“This chapter does not apply to a claim … arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort . . . .”). As its name implies, tortious interference with a contract is an intentional tort.

  4. Udeigwe v. Texas Tech University

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed November 17, 2016

    The Texas Tort Claims Act provides that the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to intentional torts. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.057(2) (“This chapter does not apply to a claim … arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort . . . .”). As its name implies, tortious interference with a contract is an intentional tort.

  5. Coffelt v. Davis et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed November 8, 2016

    Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Tex. 2001); see also Alcala v. Texas Webb County, 620 F.Supp.2d 795, 802 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (The TTCA “explicitly states that it does not extend its limited waiver of immunity to claims ‘arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort.’”) (emphasis in original) (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.057 (2) (Vernon 2005)). Additionally, this limited waiver of sovereign immunity applies only to claims brought in state court; not in federal court.

  6. Coffelt v. Davis et al

    Brief in Support

    Filed November 18, 2016

    CODE§ 101.106 ... , ............................................................................. 1, 16 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.057(2) ....................................................................... 14 TEX. CIV. PRAC.

  7. Releford v. City Of Houston et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 21, 2015

    Significantly, the TTCA expressly does not waive immunity for intentional torts. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.057 (West 2012). See also City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2014).

  8. Wyatt v. Fletcher et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed September 1, 2011

    v. Wehba, No. 11-05-00287-CV, 2006 WL 572022, at *2 (Tex. App.–Eastland March 9, 2006, no pet.) (citing TEX. CIV. PRACTICE & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.057(2)) (holding that a Case 6:10-cv-00674-JDL Document 41 Filed 09/01/11 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 178 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 16 OF 34 claim of invasion of privacy against a state technical college was barred by sovereign immunity); Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Hohman, 6 S.W.3d 767, 777 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet.