Speaking Engagements

Eminent Domain Trends in the Texas Supreme Court

Eminent Domain Conference - CLE International
01.01.12

Overview and Background

In the past year, the Texas Supreme Court has issued five significant opinions that could be characterized as expanding landowner rights at the expense of condemnors – from declaring that landowners have right to challenge a city’s nuisance determination de novo in condemnation proceedings, to holding that landowners have a constitutionally compensable interest in groundwater, to making it easier to challenge the common carrier status of pipeline companies – the current Court is decidedly pro-landowner.

These opinions demonstrate a major shift in the Texas Supreme Court’s treatment of takings. Since the middle of the nineteenth century until last year, the Texas Supreme Court repeatedly and uniformly endorsed the taking of private land for the public benefit. Until recently, the Court recognized the need for the State’s power of eminent domain and that the right “grows out of necessity,” and without it, “society and government could not exist.”
Imperial Irrigation Co. v. Jayne, 138 S.W. 575, 587 (Tex. 1911). In the past, the Court protected all condemnors, including private condemnors, because it recognized that delegation of the power of eminent domain to private entities such as railroads, pipelines, water, and mining companies was important to the State’s economy. See, e.g., Borden v. Trespalacios Rice & Irrigation Co., 86 S.W. 11 (1905); West v. Whitehead, 238 S.W. 976 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1922, writ ref’d).

It is too early to know what effect the Court’s new stance will have on the Texas economy or whether it will dramatically increase litigation over takings claims.

Read more.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top