August 31, 2012 was a big day in the Texas Supreme Court for takings and condemnation lawyers. The court issued three major opinions in our favorite area of law. The first involves a question of public use, the second inverse condemnation, and the third valuation. Trifecta.
Instead of putting our gloss on the opinions, we'll just post them and excerpts of the summaries from the Supreme Court of Texas Blog.
- City of Austin v. Whittingthon, No. 10-0316 - From the Supreme Court of Texas Blog: "This is a potentially major takings case about when government can take property for private (rather than public) benefit. The City of Austin took a parcel of land in downtown that was, in short order, folded into a private development. A jury concluded that this taking was made in bad faith, and the court of appeals agreed. Divided 7-2, the Texas Supreme Court reverses. ... What makes this a potential landmark is the strength of the evidence — coming from (as the dissent notes) the city’s own witnesses. If this evidence is so weak that it cannot support a verdict in favor of a landowner on this type of bad-faith takings claim, these may be very difficult to win indeed." More here and here (briefs, oral arguments).
- Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State of Texas, No. 10-0491 - Does a property owner make out an inverse condemnation claim against the State when it alleges that a State agency's action resulted in a federal agency denying a permit? The court answered no. More here and here (briefs, orals).
- Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P. v. Avinger Timber, LLC, No. 10-0950 - From the opinion: "This case involves a dispute over the fair market value of acreage on which a gas processing facility is located. We must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting an expert’s testimony that allegedly violated the value-to-the-taker rule, which prohibits measuring land’s value by its unique value to a condemnor in determining a landowner’s compensation. We hold that the expert’s testimony violated the rule because it impermissibly focused on the condemnor’s interest in retaining the property and was therefore inadmissible." More here and here (briefs, orals).
