officer’s exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.” Id. Upon successful proof of an ultra vires claim, a claimant is entitled to prospective injunctive relief. Id. at 376. McCraw argues that sovereign immunity applies because he was acting in his official capacity pursuant to the authority granted to, and the duty imposed upon, DPS under article 62.005 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.005(a) (West Supp. 2016) (requiring DPS to “maintain a computerized central da er registration laws is uniform in courts throughout Texas, ■ as well as the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Smith uston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we find that Morales does not
holding that a consent judgment is essentially a contract holding that the sorp is essentially regulatory even though it has some inherently punitive characteristics holding what section 76872 requires is that a plaintiff who has pleaded punitive damages must offer a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages and obtain an order authorizing the maintenance of the punitive damage claim as a predicate to conducting discovery of a defendants financial worth holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague holding that a patent infringement action is essentially a tort