Court Opinion

ID: 9517201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:08:44.535526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:27.386284
License: Public Domain

Justice ENOCH
filed a concurring opinion.
I join the Court’s judgment, but only because I maintain that the Legislature, by authorizing state agencies to enter into contracts, has expressly waived sovereign immunity.1 The University executed the settlement agreement; thus it may not interpose sovereign immunity as a defense to suit on the agreement.
The Court struggles to tie the waiver of sovereign immunity underlying the Whis-tleblower Act cause of action, which was settled, to the current litigation over the settlement agreement. The dissent responds that the Court sidesteps our traditional rule that the enforcement of a settlement agreement is a separate breach-of-contract action.2 This is an unnecessary argument that arises solely because the Court refuses to recognize, though virtually all other state jurisdictions have, that by *524entering into a contract, the state waives sovereign immunity.3
I concur in the Court’s judgment.

. See Federal Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 416 (Tex.1997) (Enoch, J., dissenting); see also Travis County v. Pelzel & Assoc. Inc., 77 S.W.3d 246, 252 (Tex.2002) (Enoch, J., dissenting); Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 863 (Tex.2002) (Enoch, J., dissenting); Gen. Serv. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co. Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591, 602 (Tex.2001) (Enoch, J., dissenting); Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 220, 221 (Tex.2001) (Enoch, J., dissenting).

. See Tex. A & M Univ.-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518, 524 (Tex.2002) (Rodriguez, J., dissenting); see also Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658-59 (Tex.1996).

. See Federal Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 419 (Enoch, J., dissenting).