Cameron Cty. v. Carrillo

12 Citing cases

  1. Junemann v. Harris Cty

    84 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that when officer's failure to activate lights was disputed, testimony that did not evaluate risks associated with failure to activate lights was insufficient to establish good faith conclusively

    Harris County cites two cases for the proposition that failing to activate emergency lights is not action covered by the Tort Claims Act. See City of Houston v. Rushing, 7 S.W.3d 909, 915 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Cameron County v. Carillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). To recover under the theory of use or misuse of non-defective tangible personal property, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the property was used or misused by a governmental employee acting within the scope of his employment; and (2) the use or misuse of the property was a contributing factor to the alleged harm. Salcedo v. El Paso Hosp. Dist., 659 S.W.2d 30, 31 (Tex. 1983).

  2. City of La Joya v. Herr

    41 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 10 times

    This Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on an assertion of official immunity. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(5) (Vernon Supp. 2001); University of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Margulis, 11 S.W.3d 186, 187-88 (Tex. 2000); Cameron Co. v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). A. Traditional Summary Judgment

  3. McCartney v. May

    50 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that "[q]ualified immunity against section 1983 claims requires proof of effectively the same elements as official immunity under Texas law"

    Initially, May contends that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. He argues that the issues asserted in appellants' third motion for summary judgment were considered and rejected by the trial court on January 20, 1998. Because they did not take a timely appeal from that denial, he posits that this appeal is untimely and we have no jurisdiction to consider it. In advancing that argument, May places primary reliance upon the court's decision in Cameron County v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 708-09 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). However, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a does not limit the number of times a motion for summary judgment may be filed. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a. The general rule is that denial of a summary judgment is interlocutory and is in no way final.

  4. Hidalgo Co. v. Gonzalez

    128 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that county could appeal denial of its summary-judgment motion under of section 51.014, though it was not an officer or employee in case in which the county sought dismissal based on the employee's official immunity

    Official immunity frees government officials to exercise their duties without fear of damage suits which would consume their time and energy and might appreciably inhibit their fearless, vigorous, and effective execution of their duties. Cameron County v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). Governmental employees are entitled to official immunity from suit arising from the performance of their (1) discretionary duties in (2) good faith as long as they are (3) acting within the scope of their authority.

  5. Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Caltzonsing

    658 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. App. 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Addressing self-insurer exclusion to UM/UIM coverage

    The doctrines of sovereign and official immunity protect both the driver and owner of the car. SeeCameron County v. Carrillo , 7 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1999, no pet.).

  6. Zuniga v. Navarro Assoc

    158 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Holding good faith may be established in summary judgment context by the defendant official's own affidavit

    City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex. 1994). A defendant asserting sovereign or governmental immunity must prove conclusively that they are eligible to take advantage of that affirmative defense as well. Cameron County v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.) and Herrera v. Spencer, No. 13-02-386-CV, 2003 WL 22349599, at *1 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Oct. 16, 2003, no pet.) (citing Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836, 842 (Tex. 2001)). A. Official Immunity

  7. Ramirez v. County of Live Oak

    No. 13-02-611-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 27, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49.Cameron County v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.).Johnson, 48 S.W.3d at 893.

  8. City of Alton v. Sharyland Water

    No. 13-02-114-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 20, 2003)   Cited 1 times

    In such an interlocutory appeal, however, the appellate court is strictly limited to determining the question of official immunity and the governmental entity's sovereign immunity to the extent that it is based on such official immunity. Cameron County v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here.

  9. Perry v. Greanias

    No. 01-99-00199-CV (Tex. App. May. 23, 2002)

    . . . Cameron County v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.) (citations omitted). Perry relies on several cases for the proposition that, to be entitled to official immunity, Greanias must first establish that the City of Houston was not acting in a proprietary capacity.

  10. Vela v. Rocha

    52 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 29 times
    Referring to an affidavit that stated that: "It is long-standing TDH [Texas Department of Health] policy for all employees to report sexual harassment when it occurs in the workplace" and concluding that the reporting employees were entitled to official immunity

    The purpose of official immunity is to insulate the functioning of government from the harassment of litigation, not to protect erring officials; the public would suffer if government officers, who must exercise judgment and discretion in their jobs, were subject to civil lawsuits that second-guessed their decisions. Kassen v. Hatley, 887 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Tex. 1994); see Cameron County v. Carrillo, 7 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). When official immunity shields a governmental employee from liability, sovereign immunity shields the governmental employer from vicarious liability.