Charles Manbeck v. Austin Independent School District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, under Reata , immunity from suit barred counterclaim for attorney's fees because the governmental entity did not assert a claim for \money damages\
• concluding that the provisions in Chapter 504 of the Labor Code are too “‘internally inconsistent’ to meet the standard of a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity”
• holding that although fee-shifting provision had been included in list of adopted provisions, new 15 no-waiver provision made Political Subdivisions Law too internally inconsistent to constitute unambiguous immunity waiver
• holding that school-district carrier under Act “never sought affirmative relief” by merely availing itself of “the administrative phase of the [Act’s dispute- resolution] process” in seeking review of Division’s decision on extent of worker’s compensable injury
• holding that school-district carrier under Act “never sought affirmative relief” by merely availing itself of “the administrative phase of the [Act’s dispute- resolution] process” in seeking review of Division’s decision on extent of worker’s compensable injury
• noting that State Application Act’s incorporation of Tort Claims Act “precluded exemplary damages and capped actual damages”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).