quorum hearing in Texas

2020Id. 7 A quo warranto proceeding “is the proper way to challenge procedural faults such as the adequacy of a service plan, lack of notice, lack of a quorum for hearing, and ‘other deficiencies in the procedure of adopting the annexation ordinance.’” Town of Fairview v. Lawler, 252 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (quoting City of San Antonio v. Hardee, 70 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.)).

2010Thus, a quo warranto suit is the proper way to challenge procedural faults such as the adequacy of a service plan, lack of notice, lack of a quorum for hearing, and “other deficiencies in the procedure of adopting the annexation ordinance.” City of San Antonio v. Hardee, 70 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet.).

2008City of San Antonio, 70 S.W.3d at 210 ; see Laidlaw Waste Sys.(Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.1995) (Laidlaw lacked standing to challenge annexation on procedural grounds, such as alleged failures to meet notice and signature requirements); Alexander Oil Co., 825 S.W.2d at 438 (Alexander’s allegations whether service plan was adequate and quorum was required to conduct hearing were matters that could be raised in quo warranto but not private challenge).

2008(Dallas) Inc. v. City of Wilmer , 904 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1995); Pearce , 33 S.W.3d at 417 ; Forbes , 304 S.W.2d at 546 .

2020Id. 7 A quo warranto proceeding “is the proper way to challenge procedural faults such as the adequacy of a service plan, lack of notice, lack of a quorum for hearing, and ‘other deficiencies in the procedure of adopting the annexation ordinance.’” Town of Fairview v. Lawler, 252 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (quoting City of San Antonio v. Hardee, 70 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.)).

2015Id. at 438 .

2020Id. 7 A quo warranto proceeding “is the proper way to challenge procedural faults such as the adequacy of a service plan, lack of notice, lack of a quorum for hearing, and ‘other deficiencies in the procedure of adopting the annexation ordinance.’” Town of Fairview v. Lawler, 252 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (quoting City of San Antonio v. Hardee, 70 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.)).

2015A quo warranto suit by the State on behalf of its citizens is the only proper method to challenge procedural irregularities “such as a lack of [statutory] notice, [in]adequacy of a service plan, lack of a quorum for a hearing, and other defects in the process of adopting an annexation ordinance.” Town of Fairview v. Lawler, 252 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).

2010However “[individuals have been allowed to bring private causes of action when challenging annexation of territory that (i) exceeds statutory size limitations, (ii) is within the corporate limits of another municipality, (iii) is not contiguous with current city limits, and (iv) has a boundary description that does not close.” Town of Fairview, 252 S.W.3d at 856 (citing Alexander Oil Co., 825 S.W.2d at 437 ; City of San Antonio, 70 S.W.3d at 210 ; and City of Wichita Falls v. Pearce, 33 S.W.3d 415, 417 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, no pet.)).

2009However "[i]ndividuals have been allowed to bring private causes of action when challenging annexation of territory that (i) exceeds statutory size limitations, (ii) is within the corporate limits of another municipality, (iii) is not contiguous with current city limits, and (iv) has a boundary description that does not close." Town of Fairview , 252 S.W.3d at 856 (citing Alexander Oil Co ., 825 S.W.2d at 437 ; City of San Antonio , 70 S.W.3d at 210 ; and City of Wichita Falls v. Pearce , 33 S.W.3d 415, 417 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2000, no pet.)).

2015A party other than the State may challenge an annexation as “void” on the ground that a municipality has exceeded its authority, delegated to it by the legislature, by attempting to (1) annex territory exceeding the statutory municipal 10 size limits; (2) annex areas included in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of another city; (3) annex areas not contiguous with current city limits; or (4) annex an area with a boundary description that does not “close.” See Alexander Oil, 825 S.W.2d at 438 (citations omitted); see also Laidlaw Waste Sys., 904 S.W.2d at 658 (holding private party may collater