Chappell Hill Sausage Company v. John Durrenberger, in His Official Capacity as Washington County Judge Don Koester, Candice Bullock, Kirk Hanath, and Joy Fuchs, Each in His or Her Official Capacity as a Washington County Commissioner Ross McCall in His Official Capacity as Washington County Road and Bridge Department Engineer And Mark Marzahn in His Official Capacity as Washington County Floodplain Coordinator and Environmental Health Director
14-19-00897-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- Landowner owns agricultural property on New Year Creek; drainage passes under a county road via a county-maintained culvert.
- Heavy rainfall in 2014–2015 caused standing water on the property; landowner alleges the culvert was blocked or undersized and that county inaction caused impoundment/diversion of surface water and subsequent erosion (exacerbated by a neighbor’s trench).
- Landowner sued the neighbor and sued seven Washington County officials in their official capacities seeking prospective injunctive relief to require maintenance of the culvert and alleging violations of the Texas Water Code (claims framed as ultra-vires).
- County officials filed a plea to the jurisdiction; the trial court granted it. The landowner appealed interlocutorily.
- The court of appeals held ultra-vires suits for prospective relief against officials are not barred by governmental immunity but reversed the trial court’s dismissal because the landowner failed to plead facts establishing standing (injury traceable to each official and that injunction would remedy the injury); the court allowed the landowner opportunity to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ultra-vires claims for prospective injunctive relief are barred by governmental immunity | Ultra-vires claims seek to compel officials to comply with law and thus are not barred by governmental immunity | Claim is effectively against the county and sounds in tort, so immunity/Tort Claims Act defenses apply | Court: Ultra-vires suits for prospective relief against officials are not barred by governmental immunity (Heinrich/McRaven) |
| Whether the landowner pleaded standing (injury, traceability, redressability) as to each named official | Standing exists because culvert blockage on county road caused the injury and officials acknowledged responsibility for road/culvert maintenance | Plea argued lack of waiver and (implicitly) lack of jurisdiction/traceability to officials | Court: Pleadings failed to show which official had ministerial duty or that injury was traceable to each official or that injunction against them would likely remedy injury; thus standing not established |
| Whether the pleadings affirmatively negate jurisdiction (i.e., are incurable) | Petition alleges ultra-vires claims and cites Water Code; plaintiff should be allowed to proceed | Officials argued the claims are essentially tort claims requiring Tort Claims Act compliance | Court: Pleadings did not conclusively negate jurisdiction; defects are curable — plaintiff given opportunity to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction and pleading burden to show jurisdiction)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra-vires suits against officials for prospective relief are not barred by governmental immunity)
- Meyers v. JDC/Firethorne, Ltd., 548 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2018) (standing requires injury, traceability, and likelihood relief will remedy injury; defendant must have authority to provide relief)
- Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2015) (definition of ministerial versus discretionary acts)
- Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2017) (ultra-vires claims depend on officer’s scope of authority)
- Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (standing requires concrete injury and a justiciable controversy)
- County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (when jurisdictional pleadings are deficient but not incurable, plaintiff should be allowed to amend)
- Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co. of San Antonio, 779 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1989) (court should retain case unless pleadings clearly show lack of jurisdiction)