EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control 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 summary-judgment evidence did not raise genuine fact issue as to whether defendant had right to control the details of the work performed by contractor’s employees
• concluding third-party contractor was independent contractor, not employee, such that flood control district did not waive immunity per section 101.021(1) 13
• applying right-to-control factors to determine whether construction company working on a flood control district project was an independent contractor or a government employee
• “[T]he fact that the [county] engineer reserved the right to ask [contractor] to remove an objectionable worker does not mean that [flood control district] controlled the details of [contractor’s] work.”
• “[T]he fact that the [county] engineer reserved the right to ask [contractor] to remove an objectionable worker does not mean that [flood control district] controlled the details of [contractor’s] work.”
• contractor furnished own equipment and supplies, including vehicle at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).