in Re Steven Griffith in His Official Capacity, Douglas Brinkley in His Official Capacity, Scott Schultz in His Official Capacity, and Mark Grothaus in His Official Capacity, 485 S.W.3d 529

Tow contracts regulate police-initiated tows within Sugar Land; Collision Clinic (Hanna Elias) owned one company on the rotation list.
In 2014 the City created a new, limited five-wrecker-operator contract, cancelling the old arrangement.
Collision Clinic applied for the new contracts but was not selected, prompting litigation.
Collision Clinic and Elias sued city officials (Griffith, Brinkley, Schultz, Grothaus) in their official capacities seeking to void and enjoin the new contracts under Chapter 252 and related statutes.
The trial court denied the officials’ plea to the jurisdiction; the officials sought mandamus and an emergency stay; this court consolidated appeals and original proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has interlocutory jurisdiction to hear the plea.	Collision Clinic contends the plea to the jurisdiction lacks proper basis.	Griffith contends immunity and ultra vires issues negate jurisdiction.	Appellate court has jurisdiction under 51.014(a)(8) and rejects lack of jurisdiction.
Whether Section 252.021 applies to the contracts at issue.	Collision Clinic argues the contracts violated §252.021's bidding requirements.	Griffith argues §252.021 inapplicable because funds were not expended by the City.	Section 252.021 inapplicable; no ultra vires violation.
Whether the officials have governmental immunity to void the contracts.	Collision Clinic seeks relief against City actions; claims rely on ultra vires theory.	Officials contend immunity applies since §252.021 did not govern the contracts.	Officials have governmental immunity; suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether declaratory judgments and injunctive relief are barred by immunity.	Collision Clinic seeks declaratory/injunctive relief.	Immunity bars retrospective relief; declaratory relief must be tied to jurisdiction.	Declaratory/Judicial relief barred; suit dismissed.

City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. 2007) (city immunity in governmental functions; scope of immunity)
Koseoglu v. TX, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (official may appeal denial of plea to jurisdiction; immunity analysis on appeal)
Miranda v. City of Dallas, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for determining jurisdiction in plea to the jurisdiction)
Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (governmental-immunity defenses may be raised on appeal)
Bailey v. Univ. of TX HSC at San Antonio, 332 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. 2011) (ultra vires; limitations on remedies against officials)
Heinrich v. City of Fort Worth, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (immunity when acting within governmental functions; ultra vires standard)
Parker v. Hunegnaw, 364 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Hou. Dist. 2012) (articulates approach to immunity and jurisdictionary analysis)