Turner, Tiffany

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 68 9-1-1999 City of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999) Tiffany Turner Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Tiffany Turner, Court Report, City of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999), 3 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 203 (1999). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COURT REPORTSState's survey. The court instead relied on the Landowners' survey,which comported with the gradient boundary methodology, to serve asthe correct marker.In addressing attorney's fees, the court rejected the Landowners'characterization that the suit was a boundary dispute and a declaratoryjudgment action. Instead, the court held the legislative resolutionauthorizing the suit did not entitle Landowners' recovery of attorney'sfees. Finally, the court found the Frivolous Claims Act did not apply.Because the State's defense to the boundary dispute demonstrated anarguable basis for the claim, the court found it was not frivolous.M. Elizabeth LokeyCity of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999) (holdingthat the City of Saginaw cannot claim sovereign immunity to denyjurisdiction to a claimant pleading an intentional taking andintentional nuisance by the City's operation of street and storm sewersresulting in intentional flooding of claimant's property).An increased volume and velocity of diverted surface waterallegedly caused by the City of Saginaw's ("City") operations resultedin erosion, destruction, and endangerment to human lives on theCarter property. The Carters alleged the City caused intentionalflooding of the property by their operation, control, and maintenanceof street and storm sewers. The Carters asserted two claims: (1)intentional taking under Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution; and(2) intentional nuisance.The City filed a plea arguing the trial court lacked subject matterjurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. The trial court denied theCity's plea. The City brought an interlocutory appeal allegingerroneous denial.The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea. Agovernmental entity cannot use sovereign immunity to end a suit onjurisdictional grounds without a showing of fraudulent pleading toconfer jurisdiction by the plaintiff. The City did not show fraudulentpleading by Carter. The pleading alleged intentional acts and,therefore, did not lack jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity, as itwould if it were a claim for negligent performance of governmentalfunctions. The court also reported summary judgment was the properavenue if the City believed Carter did not tender sufficient facts toshow intentional acts.Tiffany TurnerIssue I

City of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2909&context=wlr

City of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver