1562355, 2000 Tex.App. LEXIS 5827, 7077, http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/Opin-ions/083100/opinions.html (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (unpublished opinion) (citing State v. Miguel, 2 S.W.3d 249, 251 (Tex.1999) (per curiam), in turn citing Maxwell v. Texas Dep’t of Transp., 880 S.W.2d 461, 464 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, writ denied)). 9 . Montes, 2000 WL 1228618, at ⅜4 n. 3, 2000 Tex.App. LEXIS 5827 at *10 n. 3, http:// www. 14thcoa. courts. state.tx.us/Opin-ions/083100/opinions.html at 6, n. 3. 10 . Montes, 2000 WL 1228618 at *1, 2000 Tex.App. LEXIS 5827 at *11, http:// www. 14thcoa.courts.state.tx. us/Opinions/083100/opinions.html at 7 (Amidei, J., dissenting). 11 . See, e.g., Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Bederka, 36 S.W.3d 266 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); City of Midland v. Sullivan, 33 S.W.3d 1
recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability holding that an individual is immune from antitrust liability for exercising first amendment right to petition the government holding united states government is immune from rico suit holding that a railroad operated and owned by the federal government was immune from antitrust liability holding that the government is immune from liability for its choice of traffic protection devices