5,933
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17 (view source)
Revision as of 10:27, June 18, 2025
, June 18no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''Commons of Lake Houston, LTD. v. City of Houston'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9212496728385225048#p--- ___] (Tex. 2025) ( | * ''Commons of Lake Houston, LTD. v. City of Houston'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9212496728385225048#p--- ___] (Tex. 2025) (citation & footnotes omitted) ("An owner who believes the government has taken its property may bring an 'inverse' condemnation claim to recover adequate compensation. To prevail on an inverse-condemnation claim, the owner must plead and prove that (1) the government engaged in affirmative conduct (2) that proximately caused (3) the taking, damaging, destroying, or applying (4) of specific private property (5) for a public use (6) without paying the owner adequate compensation (7) and did so intentionally or with knowledge that the result was substantially certain to occur. Whether a compensable taking has occurred is a question of law for the courts to decide, although a factfinder may need to resolve factual disputes before the court can decide the ultimate legal question.") | ||
* ''Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Self'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11329341778052650525#p--- ___] (Tex. 2024) (citations & footnotes omitted) ("The elements of an inverse condemnation or 'takings' claim are that (1) an entity with eminent domain power intentionally performed certain acts (2) that resulted in taking, damaging, or destroying the property for, or applying it to, (3) public use. Although the Constitution does not expressly require an intentional act, we have explained that such a requirement helps ensure that the taking is for 'public use.' . . . We explore these two ''Jennings'' standards for proving intent in more detail below.") | * ''Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Self'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11329341778052650525#p--- ___] (Tex. 2024) (citations & footnotes omitted) ("The elements of an inverse condemnation or 'takings' claim are that (1) an entity with eminent domain power intentionally performed certain acts (2) that resulted in taking, damaging, or destroying the property for, or applying it to, (3) public use. Although the Constitution does not expressly require an intentional act, we have explained that such a requirement helps ensure that the taking is for 'public use.' . . . We explore these two ''Jennings'' standards for proving intent in more detail below.") | ||