Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17: Difference between revisions

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17 (view source)

Revision as of 10:42, June 18, 2025

139 bytes added , June 18

m

no edit summary

Admin

attorneys, bureaucrats, interface administrators, administrators

5,933

edits

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 |recent=
-* ''Commons of Lake Houston, LTD. v. City of Houston'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9212496728385225048#p--- ___] (Tex. 2025) (footnotes omitted) ("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. . . . At this stage in this case, the parties dispute only the third element: whether the City's amendment to its floodplain ordinance caused a taking, damaging, destroying, or applying of The Commons's property.")
+* ''Commons of Lake Houston, LTD. v. City of Houston'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9212496728385225048#p--- ___] (Tex. 2025) (citations & footnotes omitted) ("At this stage in this case, the parties dispute only the third element: whether the City's amendment to its floodplain ordinance caused a taking, damaging, destroying, or applying of The Commons's property. We have recognized two broad types of takings: (1) a physical occupation, appropriation, or invasion of property and (2) a regulatory action that is so restrictive or intrusive 'that it effectively 'takes' the property.' The Commons asserts only a regulatory taking, which we have agreed may result when the government denies a development permit. Finding guidance in United States Supreme Court decisions construing the federal Constitution's takings clause, we have recognized that a regulatory taking may occur when a law or ordinance . . . .")
 * ''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.")