ACCEPTED 15-25-00086-Cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/8/2026 2:51 PM No. 15-25-00086-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS CLERK FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS _______________________________________________________ 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, CITY OF ALEDO, CITY OF ANGLETON , CITY CHRISTOPHER Clerk A. PRINE OF AUBREY, CITY OF BULVERDE, CITY OF CLYDE, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, CITY OF CRANDALL, CITY OF DENISON, CITY OF DENTON, CITY OF EDCOUCH, CITY OF ELSA, CITY OF FATE, CITY OF HUTTO, CITY OF KAUFMAN, CITY OF LA VILLA, CITY OF LOCKHART, CITY OF MCKINNEY, CITY OF NAVASOTA, CITY OF PARKER, CITY OF VAN ALSTYNE, AND AUBREY MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Appellants – Plaintiffs CITY OF ANNA, CITY OF BONHAM, CITY OF BROWNSVILE, AND CITY OF CIBOLO Appellants – Intervenor Plaintiffs 2020 LONG TAIL TRAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC Appellant – Intervenor Defendant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, ATTORNEY GENERAL KENNETH PAXTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ACTING TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS KELLY HANCOCK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND THE OFFICE OF THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Appellees – Defendants _______________________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS – INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF ANNA AND CITY OF BONHAM _____________________________________________________________ Wolfe, Tidwell & McCoy, LLP David Overcash ORAL ARGUMENT David.overcash@wtmlaw.net REQUESTED SBN 24075516 Clark McCoy 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.712.3530 telephone 972.712.3540 facsimile i IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL1
Appellants: City of Anna, Texas Plaintiff-Intervenor in court below
City of Bonham, Texas Plaintiff-Intervenor in court below
Appellants’ Counsel: Wolfe, Tidwell & McCoy, LLP
David Overcash David.overcash@wtmlaw.net SBN 24075516 Clark McCoy SBN 90001803 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.712.3530 telephone 972.712.3540 facsimile
Other Appellants: City of Grand Prairie, City of Aledo, City of Angleton, City of Aubrey, City of Bulverde, City of Clyde, City of College Station, City of Crandall, City of Denison, City of Denton, City of Edcouch, City of Elsa, City of Fate, City of Hutto, City of Kaufman, City of La Villa, City of Lockhart, City of McKinney, City of Navasota, City of Parker, City of Van Alstyne, Aubrey Municipal Development District Original Plaintiffs in court below
Other Appellants’ Counsel: Messer, Fort, PLLC
Timothy A. Dunn William Andrew Messer andy@txmunicipallaw.com
1 Defendant-Intervenor 2020 Long Tail Trail Investments, LLC has been dismissed from
this suit by order of the court dated December 29, 2025.
ii Bradford E. Bullock Arturo D. Rodriguez 6371 Preston Rd Ste 200 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.668.6400 telephone 972.668.6414 facsimile
Additional Appellants: City of Brownsville, City of Cibolo Plaintiff-intervenors in court below, joined in original plaintiff filings on appeal
Counsel: Messer, Fort, PLLC
William Andrew Messer andy@txmunicipallaw.com Bradford E. Bullock Arturo D. Rodriguez 6371 Preston Rd Ste 200 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.668.6400 telephone 972.668.6414 facsimile
Staff Counsel, being: Lena Chaisson-Munoz Jennifer Avendano Guillermo S. “Will” Trevino
Hyde Kelley LLP George E. Hyde Matthew L. Weston
iii Appellees: State of Texas, Attorney General Kenneth Paxton (in his official capacity), Acting Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Kelly Hancock (in his official capacity) 2, and the Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Appellees’ Counsel: Office of the Texas Attorney General
Lynn Saarinen Lynn.saarinen@oag.texas.gov General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 512-936-1309 telephone 512-320-0667 facsimile
2 As replacing former Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar.
iv Table of Contents
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................................. ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................... vi REPLY ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 1 I. Incorporation of Co-Appellant Reply Brief ............................................ 1 II. Comment on Standard of Review ........................................................ 1 III. Reply Argument Re: Repleading. ........................................................ 2 IV. Reply Argument Re: Anna’s Motion to Modify Judgment .................... 5 PRAYER..................................................................................................... 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...................................................................... 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................. 8
v INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004)
................................................................................................................ 1
Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (2007) ...... 3, 4, 5
Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006)............................................ 2
vi REPLY ARGUMENT
I. Incorporation of Co-Appellant Reply Brief
Other appellant parties in this case will file a reply brief addressing the
issues common to all municipalities appearing in the suit. In the interests of
judicial economy, Anna and Bonham incorporate by reference herein all of
the arguments, facts, and authority presented in the reply brief(s) filed by the
City of Grand Prairie, et al. (“GP Group”), as if set forth herein in full, save
and except those aspects of said briefs which are unique, specific, or limited
to municipalities other than Anna or Bonham. This is intended to include, but
not necessarily be limited to, incorporation of arguments presented by the
GP Group in reply to Sections I through IV (inclusive) of the Appellees’ brief
filed November 14, 2025 (“Appellees’ Brief”). 3
II. Comment on Standard of Review Only where the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of
jurisdiction may a plea to the jurisdiction be granted without allowing the
plaintiff an opportunity to amend. 4 If a petition contains multiple claims, it
should not be dismissed just because the court lacks jurisdiction over some
3 Anna and Bonham can supply additional detail or supplemental briefing regarding the
incorporation of content of reply argument upon request. 4 See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).
1 of them. 5 Appellees state in their brief that “[t]he amended [plea to the
jurisdiction] was not to challenge the Cities’ [GP Group] or Intervenor
Appellants’ claims. The amended [plea] was for the purpose of determining
if the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction.”6 While Appellees are entitled
to describe the “purpose” of their filing as they see fit, Texas jurisprudence
such as Thomas calls for courts to assess subject matter jurisdiction on a
claim-by-claim basis.7
III. Reply Argument Re: Repleading.
Appellees’ Brief asserts, without citation, that Anna and Bonham’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ACCEPTED 15-25-00086-Cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/8/2026 2:51 PM No. 15-25-00086-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS CLERK FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS _______________________________________________________ 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, CITY OF ALEDO, CITY OF ANGLETON , CITY CHRISTOPHER Clerk A. PRINE OF AUBREY, CITY OF BULVERDE, CITY OF CLYDE, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, CITY OF CRANDALL, CITY OF DENISON, CITY OF DENTON, CITY OF EDCOUCH, CITY OF ELSA, CITY OF FATE, CITY OF HUTTO, CITY OF KAUFMAN, CITY OF LA VILLA, CITY OF LOCKHART, CITY OF MCKINNEY, CITY OF NAVASOTA, CITY OF PARKER, CITY OF VAN ALSTYNE, AND AUBREY MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Appellants – Plaintiffs CITY OF ANNA, CITY OF BONHAM, CITY OF BROWNSVILE, AND CITY OF CIBOLO Appellants – Intervenor Plaintiffs 2020 LONG TAIL TRAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC Appellant – Intervenor Defendant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, ATTORNEY GENERAL KENNETH PAXTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ACTING TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS KELLY HANCOCK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND THE OFFICE OF THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Appellees – Defendants _______________________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS – INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF ANNA AND CITY OF BONHAM _____________________________________________________________ Wolfe, Tidwell & McCoy, LLP David Overcash ORAL ARGUMENT David.overcash@wtmlaw.net REQUESTED SBN 24075516 Clark McCoy 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.712.3530 telephone 972.712.3540 facsimile i IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL1
Appellants: City of Anna, Texas Plaintiff-Intervenor in court below
City of Bonham, Texas Plaintiff-Intervenor in court below
Appellants’ Counsel: Wolfe, Tidwell & McCoy, LLP
David Overcash David.overcash@wtmlaw.net SBN 24075516 Clark McCoy SBN 90001803 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.712.3530 telephone 972.712.3540 facsimile
Other Appellants: City of Grand Prairie, City of Aledo, City of Angleton, City of Aubrey, City of Bulverde, City of Clyde, City of College Station, City of Crandall, City of Denison, City of Denton, City of Edcouch, City of Elsa, City of Fate, City of Hutto, City of Kaufman, City of La Villa, City of Lockhart, City of McKinney, City of Navasota, City of Parker, City of Van Alstyne, Aubrey Municipal Development District Original Plaintiffs in court below
Other Appellants’ Counsel: Messer, Fort, PLLC
Timothy A. Dunn William Andrew Messer andy@txmunicipallaw.com
1 Defendant-Intervenor 2020 Long Tail Trail Investments, LLC has been dismissed from
this suit by order of the court dated December 29, 2025.
ii Bradford E. Bullock Arturo D. Rodriguez 6371 Preston Rd Ste 200 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.668.6400 telephone 972.668.6414 facsimile
Additional Appellants: City of Brownsville, City of Cibolo Plaintiff-intervenors in court below, joined in original plaintiff filings on appeal
Counsel: Messer, Fort, PLLC
William Andrew Messer andy@txmunicipallaw.com Bradford E. Bullock Arturo D. Rodriguez 6371 Preston Rd Ste 200 Frisco, Texas 75034 972.668.6400 telephone 972.668.6414 facsimile
Staff Counsel, being: Lena Chaisson-Munoz Jennifer Avendano Guillermo S. “Will” Trevino
Hyde Kelley LLP George E. Hyde Matthew L. Weston
iii Appellees: State of Texas, Attorney General Kenneth Paxton (in his official capacity), Acting Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Kelly Hancock (in his official capacity) 2, and the Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Appellees’ Counsel: Office of the Texas Attorney General
Lynn Saarinen Lynn.saarinen@oag.texas.gov General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 512-936-1309 telephone 512-320-0667 facsimile
2 As replacing former Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar.
iv Table of Contents
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................................. ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................... vi REPLY ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 1 I. Incorporation of Co-Appellant Reply Brief ............................................ 1 II. Comment on Standard of Review ........................................................ 1 III. Reply Argument Re: Repleading. ........................................................ 2 IV. Reply Argument Re: Anna’s Motion to Modify Judgment .................... 5 PRAYER..................................................................................................... 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...................................................................... 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................. 8
v INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004)
................................................................................................................ 1
Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (2007) ...... 3, 4, 5
Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006)............................................ 2
vi REPLY ARGUMENT
I. Incorporation of Co-Appellant Reply Brief
Other appellant parties in this case will file a reply brief addressing the
issues common to all municipalities appearing in the suit. In the interests of
judicial economy, Anna and Bonham incorporate by reference herein all of
the arguments, facts, and authority presented in the reply brief(s) filed by the
City of Grand Prairie, et al. (“GP Group”), as if set forth herein in full, save
and except those aspects of said briefs which are unique, specific, or limited
to municipalities other than Anna or Bonham. This is intended to include, but
not necessarily be limited to, incorporation of arguments presented by the
GP Group in reply to Sections I through IV (inclusive) of the Appellees’ brief
filed November 14, 2025 (“Appellees’ Brief”). 3
II. Comment on Standard of Review Only where the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of
jurisdiction may a plea to the jurisdiction be granted without allowing the
plaintiff an opportunity to amend. 4 If a petition contains multiple claims, it
should not be dismissed just because the court lacks jurisdiction over some
3 Anna and Bonham can supply additional detail or supplemental briefing regarding the
incorporation of content of reply argument upon request. 4 See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).
1 of them. 5 Appellees state in their brief that “[t]he amended [plea to the
jurisdiction] was not to challenge the Cities’ [GP Group] or Intervenor
Appellants’ claims. The amended [plea] was for the purpose of determining
if the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction.”6 While Appellees are entitled
to describe the “purpose” of their filing as they see fit, Texas jurisprudence
such as Thomas calls for courts to assess subject matter jurisdiction on a
claim-by-claim basis.7
III. Reply Argument Re: Repleading.
Appellees’ Brief asserts, without citation, that Anna and Bonham’s
“pleadings alone demonstrated that the jurisdictional defects could not be
cured.”8 In the absence of express findings of fact or conclusions of law from
the court below which identify what—if any—jurisdictional defect exists with
respect to Anna or Bonham’s live pleadings, this self-serving conclusory
statement must be rejected. Further, Appellees fail to explain why the
purported jurisdictional defects in Anna and/or Bonham’s pleadings cannot
be cured by amendment.9 Instead, Appellees appear to rely on an contention
5 See generally Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006). 6 Appellees’ Brief at Sec. V, Issue 1, item (2)(p. 72).
7 See generally Thomas.
8 Appellees’ Brief at Sec. V, Issue 1, preamble (p. 70).
9 See generally Appellees’ Brief.
2 within their filings below that lacks any legal citation—that Anna and Bonham
have a burden to “demonstrate that they can cure any jurisdictional defect in
their pleadings to salvage their claims against the State of Texas.” 10
First, Anna and Bonham note that the assertion above is specific to
one appellee (State of Texas), but there are additional parties-defendant in
this suit: the Texas Attorney General, the Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts, and the Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Appellees have failed to explain why jurisdictional defect arguments specific
to the State of Texas should be applied to other parties.
Second, Appellees improperly seek to entirely “flip the burden” relating
to amendment of pleadings to address jurisdictional defects. Stated most
simply: to the extent such any burden falls on the plaintiffs/appellants in this
context, Anna and Bonham would “demonstrate” their ability to cure
jurisdictional defects by amending their pleadings. As explained in Koseoglu
(cited by Appellees’ Brief at p. 70) and other cases, only jurisdictional
evidence and the pleadings themselves are to be considered in ruling on a
plea to the jurisdiction.11 It is unclear what mechanism Appellees would
10 20 CR 4725 (italics added).
11 Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (2007); see also County of
Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002).
3 contend Anna and Bonham should have used to “demonstrate” the ability to
cure “defects” or jurisdictional challenges which had not yet been found to
have any merit in the trial court. Further, Appellees have not at any point
identified content of Anna’s or Bonham’s pleadings which would preclude
demonstrating jurisdiction through amendment—nor has any appellee or
defendant produced even a scintilla of jurisdictional evidence sufficient to
render all potential pleading amendments entirely futile.
This Court should also reject the Appellees’ attempt to prematurely
conclude the case under theories already rejected by the Texas Supreme
Court. Appellees contend that Anna and Bonham “had an opportunity to
replead”, and note that both of them elected to amend their live pleadings
prior to the decision on the plea to the jurisdiction in the court below, and
contend that should deny any further amendment. 12 The Koseoglu court
assessed whether or not a plaintiff should be considered to have “a
reasonable opportunity to amend” pleadings prior to the trial court finding
merit in the jurisdictional plea from the defendant, and in pertinent part the
Texas Supreme Court’s opinion states:
Thus, the court of appeals concluded, [plaintiff] has not been given a reasonable opportunity to amend his pleadings because the trial court never found merit in [defendant’s] jurisdictional plea . . . On this point, we generally agree with the court of appeals. [Defendant’s] proposed 12 See Appellees’ Brief at Sec. IV, Issue 1, preamble (p. 70).
4 rule would essentially allow governmental entities the unjust advantage of being not only a litigant, but also the judge of the plaintiff’s pleadings . . . we agree that [plaintiff] deserves the opportunity to amend his pleadings[.]13
Even if this Court were to find the trial court came to the correct
conclusion regarding whether the live pleadings of Anna or Bonham
established subject matter jurisdiction, they are entitled to a reasonable
opportunity to amend their pleadings after there is a decision issued
which finds merit in the plea to the jurisdiction—i.e., until it is established
by the court that there are any defects to be cured. Ideally, one would
hope that the course of proceedings would allow such defects to be
identified with particularity so they can be meaningfully addressed in an
amended pleading (i.e., if standing was at issue—what component of
standing?) rather than in generic rulings which leave everyone to
speculate as to what purported defect would justify dismissal.
IV. Reply Argument Re: Anna’s Motion to Modify Judgment
As noted in prior briefing and the Appellee’s Brief, the City of Anna
filed a motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b and
alternative relief, which was pending at the time the court below closed
the entire case. 14 Appellees dispute the accuracy of Anna’s discovery
13 Koseoglu at 839-840.
14 41 CR 9153; see also Appellees’ Brief at Sec. V, Issue 2, point 2 (p. 74).
5 of evidence that a state agency—the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”)—had issued official documents and
taken regulatory actions that enforced SB 2038’s removal provisions
with respect to a petitioner creating a municipal utility district (“MUD”)
partially located in Anna’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.15 Confusingly,
despite Anna’s provision of documents reflecting that TCEQ had
declared the land at issue was not within the ETJ of any municipality
when considering the petition for creation of the MUD, Appellees
present only a true-but-immaterial statement that the property owner
had submitted a petition for release from Anna’s ETJ which was
denied. 16
Entirely unaddressed is any consideration of whether Anna’s denial
of the ETJ-release-petition may have been entirely justified, if not
required—by the requirements of SB 2038 itself, or on the basis of
denial of municipal consent required for any ETJ reduction per former
Texas Government Code § 42.023, or on any of the various
constitutional challenges presented in the instant suit. Petitions are not
15 See 41 CR 9159-94 (Exhibit 1 to Anna’s TRCP 329b motion). Various highlighted
passages warrant special attention with respect to TCEQ activity. See 41 CR 9162 (TCEQ published notice of petition for MUD, dated Dec. 4, 2024); 9166 (TCEQ order of Feb. 27, 2025); and 9175-76 (TCEQ memo of Feb. 6, 2025) 16 See Appellees’ Brief at p. 74.
6 sufficient to release property from ETJ unless they meet certain
requisites. TCEQ effectively declared that the land at issue was
entirely outside all municipal ETJ and denied Anna the benefit of the
conditions for its approval of the MUD creation. It is unknown as of this
writing whether TCEQ had actual knowledge that the landowner had
submitted an ETJ-release-petition that Anna had denied, but the net
effect of the agency’s actions constitute enforcement of SB 2038’s
release provisions. Anna should be provided an opportunity to amend
its pleadings for joinder of additional parties prior to closure of the
entire case in light of these undisputed facts regarding TCEQ
enforcement of SB 2038.
PRAYER
Anna and Bonham respectfully request that this Court reverse the
judgment of the trial court embodied by the Apr. 14 Order, and either render
judgment denying the Appellees’ pleas to the jurisdiction in their entirety or
in part, and/or remand the case to the court below for further proceedings
including resolution of pending motions, and to provide Anna, Bonham, and
other plaintiffs with a meaningful opportunity to amend their pleadings.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ David Overcash David Overcash
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are
deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy
of Appellants’ Reply Brief, via the Court’s CM/ECF system on January 8,
2026.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this document was produced on a computer using
Microsoft Word and contains less than 3000 words, as determined by the
computer software’s word-count function, excluding the sections of the
documents listed in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1).
8 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Crystal Adams on behalf of David Overcash Bar No. 24075516 cadams@wtmlaw.net Envelope ID: 109826750 Filing Code Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Reply Brief of Appellants Status as of 1/8/2026 2:59 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jennifer Holt jennifer.holt@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Allison Collins 24127467 Acollins@fosterswift.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Lena Chaisson-Munoz lena.munoz@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Cole Wilson Cole.Wilson@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Tristan AGarza tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Lynn Saarinen lynn.saarinen@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Will S.Trevino will.trevino@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Sherry Brown sherry@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Andy Messer andy@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Brad Bullock brad@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Timothy Dunn Taddunn@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Todd Disher todd@lehotskykeller.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
William Thompson will@lkcfirm.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Cole Wilson cole.wilson@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Guillermo Trevino will.trevino@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Lena Chaisson-Munoz lena.munoz@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
George Hyde ghyde@txlocalgovlaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Matthew Weston mweston@txlocalgovlaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
David Overcash david.overcash@wtmlaw.net 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT
Clark McCoy cmccoy@wtmlaw.net 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT