San Antonio River Auth. v. Austin Bridge & Rd., L.P.

5 Citing cases

  1. San Antonio River Auth. v. Austin Bridge & Rd., L.P.

    601 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. 2020)   Cited 35 times
    Noting direct and consequential damages are those that result from the defendant's breach

    The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration and staying all other court proceedings pending the arbitrator's award. 581 S.W.3d 245, 259 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017).Id. at 252, 258.

  2. San Antonio River Auth. v. Austin Bridge & Rd., L.P.

    No. 17-0905 (Tex. May. 1, 2020)

    The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration and staying all other court proceedings pending the arbitrator's award. 581 S.W.3d 245, 259 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017). Id. at 252, 258.

  3. Wesner v. Southall

    Civil Action 3:22-CV-0927-B (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    It is a “universally accepted principle[] . . . that an individual must be a party to a contract in order to be bound by it.” San Antonio River Auth. v. Austin Bridge & Rd., L.P., 581 S.W.3d 245, 251 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2017), aff'd, 601 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. 2020). And “[a] contract, whether written or oral, must define its essential terms with sufficient precision to enable the court to determine the obligations of the parties.

  4. San Antonio River Auth. v. Austin Bridge & Rd., L.P.

    No. 17-0905 (Tex. May. 1, 2020)

    The court of appeals construed subsection 2009.005(c) to mean only that "the [GDR] Act does not waive governmental immunity if a governmental agency decides to engage in binding arbitration." San Antonio River Auth. v. Austin Bridge & Rd., L.P., 581 S.W.3d 245, 258 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017) (emphasis added). So construed, the court held, "subsection (c) of section 2009.005 does not prohibit the River Authority from engaging in binding arbitration."

  5. San Jacinto River Auth. v. City of Conroe

    683 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034 (immunity waivers must be "effected by clear and unambiguous language"); Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 333 (Tex. 2006) ("a waiver of immunity must be clear and unambiguous"); Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 697 (Tex. 2003) (any waiver of immunity must be construed in favor of retaining immunity).See Tex, Gov’t Code Ann., § 311.034; State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 283 (Tex. 2006); Tex. Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224-25 (Tex. 2004); San Antonio River Auth. v. Austin Bridge & Rd., L.P., 581 S.W.3d 245, 254 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017), aff’d 601 S.W.3d 616, 625 (Tex. 2020).In its order of November 17, 2016, the Travis County district court denied the Cities’ Motions to Transfer Venue, Pleas to the Jurisdiction, and Pleas in Abatement without giving any findings of fact or conclusions of law.