Ken Halverson and KEN-DO Contracting, L.P. v. the City of Waxahachie, the City of Midlothian, and the Midlothian-Waxahachie Airport Board
This text of Ken Halverson and KEN-DO Contracting, L.P. v. the City of Waxahachie, the City of Midlothian, and the Midlothian-Waxahachie Airport Board (Ken Halverson and KEN-DO Contracting, L.P. v. the City of Waxahachie, the City of Midlothian, and the Midlothian-Waxahachie Airport Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00145-CV
KEN HALVERSON AND KEN-DO CONTRACTING, L.P., Appellants v.
THE CITY OF WAXAHACHIE, THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, AND THE MIDLOTHAN-WAXAHACHIE AIRPORT BOARD, Appellees
From the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 07-C-3025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Ken Halverson and Ken-Do Contracting, L.P. sued Appellees, the
City of Waxahachie, the City of Midlothian, and the Midlothian-Waxahachie Airport
Board, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Appellants asserted that
Appellees had violated applicable competitive bidding statutes relating to the
construction of airport hangars. The construction project was completed without Appellants having obtained an injunction.
The trial court ultimately granted the Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction and
motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellants’ claims were moot and that exceptions to
the mootness doctrine (the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception and the
public-interest exception) did not apply. The trial court also granted the plea to the
jurisdiction on sovereign immunity.
In two issues, Appellants assert that the trial court erred in finding the
controversy moot because the two exceptions apply. Appellants have not challenged
the trial court’s grant of the plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, which
is an independent ground for affirming the trial court’s judgment. Cf. Collins v. City of
Corpus Christi, 188 S.W.3d 415, 423 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, no pet.) (“If the
appellant fails to negate each ground on which the judgment may have been rendered,
we must uphold the summary judgment.”); cf. also Peeler v. Baylor Univ., No. 10-08-
00157-CV, 2010 WL 2964375, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 16, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Because Appellants have failed to challenge each ground on which the trial court
rendered judgment, we overrule both issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed August 3, 2011 [CV06]
Halverson v. City of Waxahachie Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ken Halverson and KEN-DO Contracting, L.P. v. the City of Waxahachie, the City of Midlothian, and the Midlothian-Waxahachie Airport Board, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ken-halverson-and-ken-do-contracting-lp-v-the-city-texapp-2011.