With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were named in a single protest notice "out of an abundance of caution” simply because MHCB still owned the Coker Unit on January 1, 2004. 4, 269, 253 S.W. 813, 814-15 (1923) (considering suit to recover from State on promissory notes); Tex. S. Univ. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 212 S.W.3d 893, 902-03, 909 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (considering suit for damages for breach of contract and for declarations of contractual rights); TRST Corpus, Inc. v. Fin’l Ctr., Inc., 9 S.W.3d 316, (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (considering suit for damages for, among other things, breach of contract and declarations of rights under contract). 15 . See Sondock v. Hams County Appraisal Dist., 231 S.W.3d 65, 68-9 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); BPAC Tex., LP v. Harris County Appraisal

A: holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
B: holding that an appraisal board did not acquire jurisdiction to consider an increase in the appraised value of the subject property when statute before the enactment of section 41411 did not require notice and an opportunity to be heard
C: holding that an appraisal by an outside expert is an intraagency memorandum
D: holding that trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment for appraisal district in suit for judicial review of appraisal review boards ruling appraising propertys value pursuant to appraisal agreement entered into during protest before board because appraisal agreement was final and thus rendered any board orders irrelevant
D.