Court Opinion

ID: 9678806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:33:02.627262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.048700
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
On Motion for rehearing, Texas Southern University (TSU) argues for the first time that we should treat appellee’s contract and quasi-contract claims differently, because Tex. Const, art. Ill, § 44 precludes quasi-eontractual claims against the State. That is the opposite of what TSU argued to us in its brief, where it stated:
Because quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and detrimental reliance are remedies that imply a contract where none has in fact been created under law based on the parties’ conduct, for purposes of sovereign immunity analysis they are treated the same as a contract claim. ... Thus, although this section is stated in terms of a legal contract, it is intended to address all six (6) of Araserve’s contract and quasi-contract claims....
TSU’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.