the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No.
GRAY, Chief Justice
Hall sued the City of Bryan for disannexation of property
annexed by the City. This was the third time she sued for
disannexation. Because the trial court did not err in
granting the City's motion for summary judgment and
denying Hall's summary judgment, the trial court's
judgment is affirmed.
17, 1999, the City of Bryan adopted an ordinance annexing
part of Karen Hall's property. In 2004, she filed suit
seeking disannexation. The trial court granted the City's
motion for summary judgment, and Hall appealed. We affirmed
the trial court's judgment in 2006, stating that
"the city conclusively proved that it had complied with
the service plan as written." Hall v. City of
Bryan, No. 10-05-00417-CV, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 10280, *6
(Tex. App.-Waco Nov. 29, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
(Hall I). We also determined that section 43.141(b)
of the Texas Local Government Code permitted disannexation
only for a city's failure "to perform its
obligations in accordance with the service plan; not for
failure to comply with, for example, the statutory
requirements of a service plan. Id. at *7.
2010, Hall again sued the City for disannexation. The trial
court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and if
it had any jurisdiction, the trial court granted the
City's motion for summary judgment. We affirmed the trial
court's judgment as to the City's plea to the
jurisdiction stating that Hall's complaints in her
petition about misrepresentations made by the City at public
hearings regarding the services to be provided were attacks
on the validity of the annexation process, and Hall had no
standing to proceed. Hall v. City of Bryan, No.
10-10-00403-CV, 2011 Tex.App. LEXIS 8038, *8-9 (Tex.
App.-Waco Oct. 5, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (Hall
II). We did not review Hall's issues regarding the
City's motion for summary judgment.
2012, Hall sued the City a third time for disannexation. The
City again filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for
summary judgment. The trial court granted the plea to the
jurisdiction but did not rule on the motion for summary
judgment. We affirmed the trial court's judgment granting
the City's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing
Hall's suit as to Hall's standing to seek
disannexation based on her claim that the City failed to
provide full municipal services "in good faith, "
independent of the service plan and that the annexed area did
not have sewer paid by tax dollars, fire hydrants, water on
both sides of Highway 21, and waterlines capable of
supporting fire hydrants. Hall v. City of Bryan,
2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 8071 *18-19 (Tex. App.-Waco July 24,
2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (Hall III). We determined
that there was no separate duty by a city to provide full
municipal services "in good faith" beyond those
specified in the service plan. Id. at *9. We also
determined that the service plan at issue did not include
provisions for sewer paid by tax dollars, fire hydrants,
water on both sides of the highway, or waterlines capable of
supporting fire hydrants. Id. *12. However, we
reversed the trial court's judgment granting the
City's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing Hall's
suit as to Hall's standing to seek disannexation based on
her claim that the City lacked adequate police patrols, and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Id. at *19.
of the Case
we must determine what issues are here for our review.
days after our mandate issued in Hall III, Hall
amended her 2012 petition for disannexation. Hall asserts in
her amended petition that it is "limited to the
City's failure to provide, in good faith or under its
service plan, specific municipal services" to the
annexed area. Specifically, she contends in the petition that
the annexed area has not been provided "sanitary sewer,
fire suppression with hydrants, a water line capable of
supporting fire hydrants, and regular and routine
preventative police patrols."
allegations are no different than what was alleged in her
first amended petition which we reviewed in Hall
III. As explained, all of her claims except for her
claim regarding routine police patrols were dismissed by the
trial court for lack of standing and that decision was
affirmed by this Court. Those claims were finally decided
against Hall and have become the "law of the case."
the law of the case doctrine, a decision rendered in a former
appeal of a case is generally binding in a later appeal of
the same case. Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating,
Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. 2012). By narrowing the
issues in successive stages of the litigation, the law of the
case doctrine is intended to achieve uniformity of decision
as well as judicial economy and efficiency. Hudson v.
Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986). The doctrine
is based on public policy and is aimed at putting an end to
Hall III, we said the service plan at issue did not
include provisions for sewer paid by tax dollars, fire
hydrants, water on both sides of the highway, or waterlines
capable of supporting fire hydrants; and we affirmed the
trial court's dismissal of those claims. Hall v. City
of Bryan, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 8071 *12, 18 (Tex.
App.-Waco July 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). Hall contends
we stated in Hall III that she could raise
additional claims on remand. She is correct. Id. at
n. 5 ("…our holding does not necessarily mean
there are no other claims that Hall can pursue in
this proceeding by amending her petition." (emphasis
added)). However, Hall did not raise "other
claims." Rather, she merely altered the language in her
second amended petition somewhat and raised the same
claims that were in her 2012 petition which we had
due to the law of the case doctrine, we will not revisit or
review any claim made by Hall in this appeal regarding
sanitary sewers, fire suppression with hydrants, or a water
line capable of supporting fire hydrants. Therefore, the
only reviewable claim made by Hall is the ...