City of Grapevine v. Sipes

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that Subsection (a)(3) provides a “safe harbor” once a governmental unit “corrects” removal of traffic device
• observing that § 101.021 exists as “an exception to the general rule of governmental immunity,” and § 101.060 creates “an exception to the exception: the waiver’s non-application to claims arising from ‘the absence, condition, or malfunction of a traffic or road sign’”
• “Subsection (a)(3) refers to a third person’s intervention, whereas the cause in (a)(2) is not so qualified.”
• “There is no requirement under the [Tort Claims] Act that the City own the tangible property 8 that causes the injury.”
• interpreting TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.060(a)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).