"A plea to the jurisdiction challenges a trial court's authority to decide the subject matter of a specific cause of action." Wilson v. Community Health Choice Tex., Inc., 607 S.W.3d 843, 851 (Tex. App.-Austin 2020, pet. denied) (emphasis added) (citing Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004)). Thus, for example, our sister court concluded that the substance of a governmental unit's motion contending that there was no evidence that its employees made some negligent use of any tangible personal property proximately causing a claimant's injuries- thereby implicating a waiver of sovereign immunity for a tort claim-was a "plea to the jurisdiction," within the meaning of subsection 51.014(a)(8), and that the trial court's ruling on that motion was properly challenged in an interlocutory appeal.
CECILE E. YOUNG, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONER OF TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CHOICE TEXAS, INC.; From Travis County; 3rd Court of Appeals District (03-20-00153-CV, 607 S.W.3d 843, 08-14-20) ORDER
The doctrine has a constitutional dimension, in that it prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions. Wilson v. Community Health Choice Tex., Inc. , 607 S.W.3d 843, 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020, pet. denied) (citing Matthews , 484 S.W.3d at 418 ). Here, the controverted issue is the lawfulness of the Orders that purported to price electricity at its statutory cap of $9,000/MWh.
"Undefined terms are afforded their ordinary meaning unless a different or more precise definition is apparent from the context of the statute." Wilson v. Cmty. Health Choice Tex., Inc., 607 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Tex. App.-Austin 2020, pet. denied). "When clear, the text is determinative of the enacting body's intent unless the plain meaning produces an absurd result."
(mem. op.) (cancellation by County of contract for third-party to process violations of traffic regulations did not moot request for declaratory judgment declaring contract void); Wilson v. Cmty. Health Choice Tex., Inc., 607 S.W.3d 843, 849-51 (Tex. App.-Austin 2020, pet. filed) (cancellation of Medicaid service contracts did not moot ultra vires claim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on basis that contracts were unlawful). To the contrary, the mootness question exists here because the Contract was fully performed.