Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-ILA-governmental-entities-public-officials.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:10:14+00:00

Document:
who is an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state . . . .
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(5) (Vernon 2008).
101.106(e). Austin State Hosp. v. Graham, No. 10–0674, 2011 WL 3796619, at *2 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011).
section 101.106 confers immunity in some instances to employees of governmental units).
101.001(3)(D) (Vernon 2011). We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a jurisdictional plea. See Tex.
doubts in the nonmovant’s favor.” Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d at 622 (quoting Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228).
claims in the same case over which it has jurisdiction. Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 338–39 (Tex.
concerning some claims because the trial court has jurisdiction over other claims. Id. at 339.
Although a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction may be construed as a plea to the jurisdiction, see Klein v.
(a)(8) (Vernon 2008); Young v. Villegas, 231 S.W.3d 1, 6–7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).
(A) this state and all the several agencies of government that collectively constitute the government of this state .
Constitution of Texas or from laws passed by the legislature under the constitution.
capacity” should be treated identically to “his employing governmental entity” under section 51.014(a)(8). Tex.
A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 845 (Tex. 2007).
immunity relative to those claims, we reverse and dismiss in part, affirm in part, and remand.
have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
2008). Appellees, therefore, could not--and did not--file an interlocutory appeal in Medina I.
court’s order denying the Summary Judgment Motions as to Dr. Young.

References: § 51
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.