Holland Ex Rel. Holland v. City of Houston

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a TTCA claim based on an officer’s allegedly negligent use of his service weapon was a claim for intentional tort, not negligence
• explaining that because the plaintiff sued both the City and a City police officer in his official capacity, the claim against the officer was “merely redundant and . . . of no independent legal significance”
• noting that the Houston Police Department Manual provided that a technically off-duty officer was not relieved of his responsibility to take prompt and proper police action and finding that an off-duty officer became immediately on-duty when a fight began
• “Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the intentional tort exception to waiver of municipal liability by simply pleading negligence when the shooting event upon which they base their claims is actually an intentional tort”
• “Where the essence of a claim under the TTCA arises from an intentional tort, allegations of negligence are insufficient to avoid the § 101.057 exception to liability.”
• because the plaintiff sued both a City police officer in his official capacity and the City, the claim against the officer was “merely redundant and . . . of no independent legal significance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).