TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY v. Bishop

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “negligent supervision, without more, does not constitute ‘use’ of personal property that would waive [the governmental unit]’s immunity under section 101.021(2)”
• holding that directors of student play were independent contractors rather than employees after applying right-to-control factors even though the stabbing incident occurred on the Texas A & M campus
• holding that state agency did not waive immunity from suit because there was no evidence in the record that negligent actor was employee rather than independent contractor
• holding that state agency did not waive immunity from suit because there was no evidence in the record that negligent actor was employee rather than independent contractor
• concluding play director and wife were independent contractors, not employees, such that university did not waive immunity per section 101.021(2)
• holding that faculty advisors’ alleged failure to properly supervise props does not constitute use of tangible personal property within Act’s meaning; information in form of instructions is not tangible personal property and thus does not give rise to claim under Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).