Juana Herrera, Jose Lopez-Torres, Blanca Martinez, Juan Zamora, San Juanita Sosa, America Rios, Ruth Garza, Angel Perez Alanis, Juan Trevino, Maria Margarita Martinez, and the Association of the Hoehn Subdivision v. Estella Mata, in Her Official Capacity, Robert L. Bell, in His Official Capacity, Tomas Garcia, in His Official Capacity, Mark J. Fryer, in His Official Capacity, William Davis, in His Official Capacity, Cosme Martinez, in His Official Capacity, and Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 1, 23-0457

Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 1 attempted to collect charges labeled as "delinquent taxes" from homeowners for amounts accrued between 1983 and 1998.
The amounts sought, including interest and attorney's fees, totaled around $1,100 per homeowner.
Homeowners requested removal of these old charges from the tax rolls, citing the Tax Code’s 20-year limitations period for cancelling delinquent taxes.
The District refused, arguing these were not taxes but Water Code assessments, which do not have a limitations period.
The homeowners sued District officials in their official capacities, alleging ultra vires action for failure to remove time-barred charges.
The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding homeowners had not sufficiently pleaded a Tax Code ultra vires claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the charges subject to the Tax Code’s 20-year limit?	Charges are "taxes" and must be removed after 20 years	Charges are "assessments" under the Water Code, not taxes	Sufficient allegations made that charges could be taxes
Can officials be sued for ultra vires actions here?	Refusal to remove old taxes is an ultra vires, ministerial act	Officials are immune; charges aren’t subject to Tax Code	Ultra vires claim sufficient to invoke court’s jurisdiction
Does alternative pleading preclude a Tax Code claim?	Alternative claims do not negate primary Tax Code claim	Alternative pleading concedes charges are “assessments”	Alternative pleading does not negate the Tax Code claim
Is subject matter jurisdiction alleged for the Tax Code claim?	Yes, facts sufficiently plead claim under Tax Code	No, because refund procedures weren’t followed and charges are not “taxes”	Court finds jurisdiction sufficiently pleaded

City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (addresses standard for ultra vires claims against government officials)
Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2016) (addresses pleas to the jurisdiction based on pleadings)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (sets standards for ruling on jurisdictional pleas based on the sufficiency of pleadings)
Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006) (subject matter jurisdiction is analyzed on a claim-by-claim basis)
Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation Dist. v. State, 575 S.W.3d 339 (Tex. 2019) (outlines governmental immunity exclusions for ultra vires claims)