X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
D I S S E N T I N G OPINION

I respectfully dissent from the majority decision in this case because I disagree with the majority’s application of the standard of review required to reverse the denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction. Although the question is a close one, unlike the majority, I conclude that Saverse has raised a fact question on the issue of whether the City’s alleged conduct constitutes gross negligence. See Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-28 (Tex. 2004).

When the jurisdictional evidence implicates the merits, as it does here, the trial court does not act as a factfinder. University of Tex. v. Poindexter, 306 S.W.3d 798, 807 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009, no pet.) (explaining that function of plea to jurisdiction does not require plaintiffs to put on merits of case to establish jurisdiction). The relevant evidence in this case is not undisputed, so the City’s burden is very similar to that of a movant for summary judgment, meaning that after it “asserts and supports with evidence that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” we require Saverse “to show [only] that there is a disputed material fact regarding the jurisdictional issue.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228. As with summary judgment, we review the trial court’s legal determination in such cases de novo, taking as true all evidence favorable to the non-movant and indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in the non-movant plaintiff’s favor. Id.; Poindexter, 306 S.W.3d at 807. Applying this standard, a review of the evidence shows that Saverse has raised a fact question about the City’s actual knowledge and conscious disregard of an extreme risk from this specific tree.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
November 27, 2024
London

Celebrating achievement, excellence, and innovation in the legal profession in the UK.


Learn More
December 02, 2024 - December 03, 2024
Scottsdale, AZ

Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers and financiers for the real estate healthcare event of the year!


Learn More
December 11, 2024
Las Vegas, NV

This event shines a spotlight on how individuals and firms are changing the investment advisory industry where it matters most.


Learn More

Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the New York office for a Counsel in our renowned Labor & Employment Department, working w...


Apply Now ›

Our client, a large, privately-owned healthcare company, has engaged us to find an Assistant General Counsel for their headquarters located ...


Apply Now ›

A prestigious matrimonial law firm in Garden City is seeking a skilled Associate Attorney with 5 to 7 years of experience in family law. The...


Apply Now ›