by the Wharves’ physical improvements. Accordingly, because a private landowner could have acted as the Wharves did, we conclude MBP has not shown the Wharves’ requisite intent to act under its sovereign powers. See Little-Tex, 39 S.W.3d at 599; Sw. Bell Tel., 267 S.W.3d at 496-97. Our determination that this is a contract dispute, and not a valid takings claim, is also supported by the relief MBP seeks: (1) an injunction requiring the dismantling of the recent improvements, (2) an injunction preventing further alterations to the rooftop, and (3) attorneys’ fees under the lease agreement. These remedies may be available in a breach-of-contract suit but cannot be recovered in a constitutional-takings claim. See Scott v. Huntsville Indep. Sch. Dist., 487 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex.1972) (<HOLDING>); City of San Antonio v. El Dorado Amusement
holding that eleventh amendment did not bar an action in federal courts seeking to enjoin a state attorney general from enforcing a statute claimed to violate the us constitution holding trial courts may not enjoin government from exercising its article1section17 condemnation rights holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin a tax lien holding that when the government acts to enforce public rights the mere fact that the government has no pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the courts holding that a federal court should not enjoin enforcement of a statute solely because on its face it abridges first amendment rights