A federal judge granted a temporary order Oct. 29 in the dispute over political signs near Granbury's early voting site. The City issued a statement, and Krottinger's attorney sent the City a letter. Here is the timeline, from the documents.

FORT WORTH — The dispute over political signs near the Hood County Annex early voting site moved from a federal hearing to a court order, a City statement and a demand letter in a single day.

This recap covers what happened Thursday, Oct. 29, in Krottinger v. City of Granbury, No. 4:26-CV-01369-O (N.D. Tex., Fort Worth Division). Document 14 (ECF 14) is the court's order. It runs through Nov. 12, and a hearing on a longer injunction is set for Nov. 9.

HOW WE GOT HERE, BEFORE OCT. 29

The order's account is drawn from plaintiff Kolton Krottinger's verified complaint unless it cites another source. These are his allegations as the court described them.

Oct. 19: Krottinger leased space on private property on West Pearl Street for five signs and a banner. The signs concern City Council member Gary Overdier and data centers. On the first day of early voting, the City removed the signs, the order says, while other political signs on the same lot stayed up. The City says Code Enforcement removed five signs because they "were illegally in the right-of-way and also did not contain the notice required by the Texas Election Code."

Around that time, Mark Lowery, whom the order identifies as county judge-elect, collected the signs from the City and paid $50, the order says. The City says the signs were returned the next day after the fee was paid.

Oct. 20: The City's communications manager pointed HCE to the City's open-records process rather than answering HCE's questions about the removal.

Citations followed on Oct. 21: the City mailed six citations to the property owner, five over the signs and one over the banner, the order says. The penalty for each could be up to $2,000 a day, it says.

Oct. 28: Krottinger sued the City in federal court and filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.

THURSDAY, OCT. 29: THE TIMELINE

1. The hearing. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor held a hearing on the motion. Counsel for both sides attended, the order says. According to the order, the City argued that Krottinger lacked standing because he did not pay the $50 and because the citations went to the property owner, not to him.

2. The interview. After the hearing and before the ruling, HCE interviewed Krottinger's attorney, Brandon J. Grable. He said the emergency filing was timed to the election: "we are in the time of election season that ends on Tuesday." He also said attorneys hired through the City's risk pool told the court they had not had time to review everything and relied on what the city manager told them, and that "they brought up today that it was a sticker issue." Those are Grable's characterizations of the hearing. The City's attorneys were not part of the interview.

3. The order. Judge O'Connor granted the temporary restraining order in a written order filed Oct. 29. Details are in the next section.

4. The City's statement. Granbury posted a message titled "Federal Court Issues Temporary Order in Granbury Sign Dispute." Its key lines follow the order's details.

5. The letter. By Thursday night, HCE had reviewed a letter from Grable to the City's attorneys, dated Oct. 30, asking the City to correct a sentence in that statement. More on that below.

WHAT THE ORDER DOES

The order temporarily restrains the City, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and others working with them who receive actual notice of it, from:

Removing, confiscating, relocating or disposing of five signs and a banner, or charging a fee to return them. The signs read "OVERDIER WAS RECALLED," "FOR SUPPORTING DATA CENTER," "HES SUING THE CITY TO STOP RECALL," "OVERDIER IS WRONG FOR GRANBURY" and "VOTE HIM OUT!" The banner reads "Will you sacrifice the children's health?" Replacement copies of the same messages no larger than the signs are covered. This applies while the signs are on the private property outside any public right-of-way or public easement.

Issuing or mailing a citation, complaint, notice of violation or fee to Krottinger over the signs or banner under Granbury Zoning Ordinance §§ 7.2.F(6), 7.2.F(7), 7.3.4 or 7.4, or under Texas Election Code § 259.001.

If the City believes a sign stands in a public right-of-way or easement, it must first identify to Krottinger's counsel in writing the recorded instrument, plat or survey it relies on before removing the sign.

WHAT THE ORDER DOES NOT DO

The order does not enjoin, stay or otherwise affect any proceeding pending in Granbury Municipal Court, including a case against the property owner or a business the order names. It also would not stop the City from enforcing its ordinance and the Election Code neutrally, the judge wrote, and the court agreed with Krottinger on that point.

WHAT THE JUDGE WROTE

At this early stage, the judge wrote that the City "likely violated Plaintiff's First Amendment freedoms through a viewpoint-based application of a facially neutral law." The order treats the signs and the banner as political signs under Texas Election Code § 259.003. It says the banner citation also likely violates the First Amendment.

The judge wrote that, with the Nov. 3 election less than a week away and early voting underway, Krottinger "will suffer irreparable harm if the City continues to issue citations for his signs." The order calls itself "a preliminary determination designed to maintain the status quo."

THE CITY'S STATEMENT

In that message, Granbury said that once the signs were "corrected to comply with State law and relocated," it "ceased enforcement actions because of their compliance, several days before the lawsuit was filed."

It said Judge O'Connor "heard evidence that is not factually accurate and granted a temporary restraining order." The City called the ruling "temporary, not a final judgment in the lawsuit," said the order "does not affect existing Municipal Court proceedings against the property owner," and closed: "The City respects the judicial process and will comply with the Court's order."

THE LETTER

Grable's letter, addressed to the City's attorneys at Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP in Dallas, is titled "Request for Correction and Demand to Preserve Evidence." HCE reviewed it. It asks the City to remove or correct the "not factually accurate" sentence, or to identify in writing each piece of evidence it says was inaccurate, by 5 p.m. Monday, Nov. 2.

According to the letter, the City's attorneys attended the hearing, declined to question Krottinger's witnesses, offered no evidence and filed no written response. Krottinger also disputes the City's statement that it "ceased enforcement actions," the letter says, adding that Municipal Court proceedings against the property owner are continuing. A separate section asks the City to preserve records, including emails, texts and Code Enforcement files about the signs.

HCE has seen no City response to the letter.

WHERE THE ACCOUNTS DIFFER

Evidence: Granbury says the judge heard inaccurate evidence. The letter says the City offered none. Per the order, the judge reviewed Krottinger's motion and "Parties' representations at a hearing." It does not address the City's description of the evidence.

Enforcement: Granbury says it stopped before the lawsuit was filed. Krottinger's letter says Municipal Court proceedings against the property owner continue. Both the City's statement and the order say the order does not affect those proceedings.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Bond: Per the order, Krottinger must pay or deposit $100 with the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the order.

Monday, Nov. 2, 5 p.m.: the letter's deadline for the City.

Tuesday, Nov. 3: Election Day.

Monday, Nov. 9, 9 a.m.: hearing in Courtroom 501, 501 W. 10th St., Fort Worth, on whether the restraining order should continue during the lawsuit. Grable said the step after a temporary restraining order is a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction would come after discovery and trial.

Thursday, Nov. 12, 11:59 p.m.: the restraining order expires unless the court acts.

HCE will update this story as the case moves forward.

Sources: Order, ECF 14, Krottinger v. City of Granbury (N.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 2026); City of Granbury message, "Federal Court Issues Temporary Order in Granbury Sign Dispute"; letter from Brandon J. Grable dated Oct. 30, 2026; HCE interview with Brandon J. Grable, Oct. 29, 2026.

Hood County Express — Est’d 1/26

© 2026 Hood County Express. All Rights Reserved

HoodCountyExpress.com

#HoodCounty #GranburyTX #CityOfGranbury #TexasNews #News #USNews