Court Opinion

ID: 9679872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:11:42.867369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:22.529946
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
Standing
The majority opinion states that, “Although it is true that plaintiffs’ original petition gave fair notice that they were complaining about the defendants’ failure to comply with section 26.04(e)(2) of the Tax Code, the petition gave no notice whatever that plaintiffs were seeking the only relief to which they were entitled- — an injunction prohibiting the City from adopting a tax rate.” Respectfully, I point out that plaintiffs’ original petition specifically includes a prayer for “such other and further relief to which plaintiffs may be justly entitled.” Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated a particular statute; defendants were on notice that plaintiffs were seeking the relief to which they were entitled for violation of the statute.1 Plaintiffs’ original petition establishes standing under section 26.04.
Mootness
Although the City adopted the tax rate before the trial court made any rulings in the case, that did not moot plaintiffs’ cause of action because the actions of defendants were subject to being repeated every year. See Gilbert v. El Paso County Hosp. Dist., 38 S.W.3d 85, 88 (Tex.2001). In Gilbert, even though the hospital district had approved the tax rate before the trial court rendered its judgment, the trial judge specifically ruled that the issue was not moot; the Texas Supreme Court specifically noted the trial court’s ruling and then proceeded to reach the merits of the issues on *709appeal. Id. at 88 n. 3. This case is unlike Doman, relied on by the majority opinion because, in Doman, the taxpayers filed suit after the tax rate had been set, while here, plaintiffs filed suit before the city adopted the tax rate. See Doman v. Ferris Indep. Sch. Dist., 581 S.W.2d 783, 784-85 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, writ refd, n.r.e.).
Because plaintiffs had standing to bring this action under the tax code, and because the cause of action raised was not moot, we should sustain plaintiffs’ first issue.
Declaratory Judgment Relief
Because plaintiffs have standing to sue under the tax code, plaintiffs may also seek declaratory judgment relief. See El Paso County Hosp. Dist. v. Gilbert, 64 S.W.Sd 200 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, pet. filed) (on remand). We should sustain issue two.
CONCLUSION
The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims “due to plaintiffs’ lack of standing.” In my opinion, the trial court erred. We should reverse and remand.

. A petition is to be construed liberally in favor of the pleader to determine whether it gives the opposing party information sufficient to enable it to prepare a defense. See Roark v. Allen, 633 S.W.2d 804, 809-10 (Tex. 1982).