Sibley v. Robinson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “sovereign immunity bars UDJA actions against the state and its political subdivisions absent a legislative waiver”
• recognizing that “state may be a proper party to a declaratory judgment action that challenges the validity of a statute”
• recognizing that the UDJA “waives sovereign immunity in particular cases” but otherwise it is “merely a procedural device for deciding cases already within a court’s jurisdiction” (quoting Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011))
• explaining that proper defendant in ultra vires action is government official “whose acts or omissions allegedly trampled on the plaintiff’s rights”
• holding UDJA claim immunity barred because it challenged agency’s actions under statute rather than validity of statute
• finding that suits to require state officials to comply with constitutional provisions are not prohibited by sovereign immunity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).