one joint protest was filed, there were, in effect, two protests submitted under one notice: MHCB’s and Valero Refining’s. 8 . See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 6.41(a) (Vernon Supp.2006) (establishing appraisal review boards for each appraisal d g parties’ Primary Allegations based on the allegedly valid Appraisal Agreement, and we may not con .3d 246, 247-48 (Tex.2002) (considering suit for damages resulting from breach of contract); Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853-54 (Tex.2002) (considering suit for damages resulting from breach of contract); Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 595-96 (Tex.2001) (considering suit for damages resulting from breach of contract); Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404-05 (Tex.1997) (<HOLDING>); Herring v. Houston NatT Exch. Bank, 113 Tex.
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract holding that immunity from suit barred claim that although couched in terms of suit alleging potential statelaw violations sought monetary damages for breach of contract holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract