Ordinance, and that Northlake’s status as a type A general-law municipality may only be called into question by the State of Texas in a quo warranto proceeding. The basis for requiring quo warran-to proceedings f Austin, 466 S.W.2d 722, 727 (Tex.1971) (private parties who are directly affected may collaterally attack a void incorporation or annexation). Where the ordinance is challenged due to procedural irregularities, and the municipality does not exceed the authority delegated to it by the legislature in its enactment, the ordinance is only voidable, and the State’s participation in a quo warranto proceeding is required. Even if the municipal act is void, the private party must suffer some burden peculiar to himself to acquire standing to sue. Alexander Oil Co., 825 S.W.2d at 438-39 (<HOLDING>). Here, Justin/Sentry asserted that the
holding annexation ordinance only voidable due to procedural irregularities holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff holding parratt only applies to procedural due process claims holding annexation ordinance void holding annexation ordinance void where municipality attempted to annex unoccupied territory without owner consent