Forrest M. Mims, Minnie Mims, Ray Reininger, Deborah Reininger, Glenn Thompson, Annette Thompson, Blake C. Brock, and Annette Dannelly-Silva v. City of Seguin, Texas, 04-20-00355-CV

The City of Seguin constructed an Oak Village North sanitary sewer system; a uniform-gravel trench functioned as a 2.5-mile French drain and produced artesian springs at five points.
Groundwater channeled by the trench flooded several homeowners’ lots, damaged septic systems, killed trees, and caused habitability and foundation problems.
Homeowners sued the City (inverse condemnation and nuisance under Tex. Const. art. I, § 17), alleging the City knew or was substantially certain its project would cause identifiable harm (warnings from owner-scientist Forrest Mims, preconstruction notice from TRC Engineers, an Emergency Resolution by the City, and post-construction admissions).
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing the pleadings failed to show a constitutionally cognizable taking (insufficient to waive governmental immunity). The trial court granted the plea and dismissed with prejudice.
On appeal the Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed the plea de novo, concluded the pleadings—taken as true and liberally construed—adequately alleged the City knew or was substantially certain its actions would damage specific property for a public benefit, reversed the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Homeowners’ pleadings sufficiently alleged a taking under art. I, § 17 to waive governmental immunity	Pleadings allege trench acted as French drain, channeled groundwater, caused specific flooding/damage, and City knew or was substantially certain of harm (preconstruction warnings, Emergency Resolution, TRC correspondence)	Pleadings are legally deficient; do not show City knew damage was substantially certain or that damage was for a public use	Court: Pleadings, taken as true and liberally construed, sufficiently allege knowledge/substantial certainty and public-use balancing; dismissal improper; remand
Whether pleadings met specificity requirement that government knew which property would be affected	Alleges trench was excavated into homeowners’ gully, quantifies flow near mailbox, and describes damage to specific lots	Claims City only faced general risk of flooding, not specific, known damage to these parcels	Court: Allegations identify directional flow, specific springs/volumes, and excavation into the gully—satisfies Kerr specificity requirement at pleading stage

City of Conroe v. San Jacinto River Auth., 602 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2020) (governmental immunity defeats subject-matter jurisdiction)
Steele v. City of Houston, 603 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. 1980) (takings claims waive immunity for uncompensated takings)
City of Dallas v. Jennings, 142 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2004) (takings liability when government knows specific harm or damage is substantially certain; public-use balancing)
State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. 2007) (plea to jurisdiction standard; pleadings accepted as true absent evidence negating jurisdictional facts)
Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (plaintiff may amend pleadings if plea to jurisdiction is meritorious)
Harris Cty. Flood Control Dist. v. Kerr, 499 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. 2016) (specificity requirement: government ordinarily knows which property it is taking)
San Antonio Water Sys. v. Overby, 429 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (distinguishable where jurisdictional facts were negated by evidence)