IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
════════&#=
9552;═══
No. 05-0959
════════λ=
2;═══
Lamesa Independent School=20
District, =
Petitioner,
v.
David Booe d/b/a Booe =
Roofing Company,=20
Respondent
════════λ=
2;══════════&=
#9552;═════════_=
52;══════════=
══════════ =
552;═
On Petition for Review from =
the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh =
District of=20
Texas
════════&#=
9552;═════════λ=
2;══════════&=
#9552;═════════_=
52;══════════=
══
PER =
CURIAM
=20
David Booe d/b/a Booe=20
Roofing Co. sued Lamesa Independent School=20
District, seeking to recover under breach of =
implied=20
contract and quantum meruit theories. The =
trial court=20
denied the District=92s plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental =
immunity=20
from suit, issuing four conclusions of law in support of the denial. The =
court=20
of appeals affirmed, __S.W.3d__, basing its decision entirely on the =
trial=20
court=92s first conclusion=97that the District=92s immunity is waived by =
section=20
11.151(a) of the Education Code, which provides that =93[t]he trustees =
of an=20
independent school district constitute a body corporate and in the name =
of the=20
district may . . . sue and be sued.=94 Tex. Educ. =
Code =A7 11.151(a).
=20
The court of appeals=92 holding on section 11.151(a) conflicts =
with our=20
decisions in Tooke v. City of =
Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006), and =
Satterfield=20
& Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Irving=20
Independent School District, 197 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2006), issued =
after the=20
court of appeals=92 opinion in this case. As we held in =
Satterfield,=20
section 11.151(a) is not a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity.=20
Satterfield, 197 S.W.3d at 391.
=20
The court of appeals also noted that, while this case was pending =
on=20
appeal, the Legislature enacted subsections 271.151-.160 of the Local =
Government=20
Code, which retroactively waive sovereign immunity for certain claims =
against=20
local government entities, including public school districts. Tex. Loc. =
Gov=92t Code =A7=A7 =
271.151=96271.160. Booe does not argue that the District=92s immunity =
is waived=20
by the newly enacted sections, and we express no opinion on that =
subject.
=20
Accordingly, we grant the District=92s petition for review, and =
without=20
hearing oral argument, Tex. R. =
App.=20
P. 59.1, reverse the court of appeals=92 judgment and remand the =
case to=20
that court to consider the District=92s remaining issues. Tex. R. App. =
P. 60.2(d); Anderson v. Gilbert, 897 =
S.W.2d=20
783, 785 (Tex.=20
1995).
OPINION DELIVERED: =
September 28,=20
2007