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 10:53, June 18, 2025
, June 18no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
* ''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) ("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 . . . .") | * ''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) ("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 . . . .") | ||
* ''Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Self'', | * ''Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Self'', 690 S.W.3d 12, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9034220576448734346#p26 26] (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.") | ||
* ''City of Baytown v. Schrock'', 645 S.W.3d 174, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5501203577523966836#p184 184] (Tex. 2022) (J. Young, concurring) ("Had the Texas Constitution been presented as an alternative rather than duplicative source of law, today's case may have turned out differently. Or maybe not. We cannot know for sure until we have a case like this one that includes arguments tailored to our ''state'' constitutional law. It is clearly true that the Texas Takings Clause is broader than the federal . . . . We cannot meaningfully answer those questions unless litigants undertake substantial additional work beyond invoking federal takings doctrines.") | * ''City of Baytown v. Schrock'', 645 S.W.3d 174, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5501203577523966836#p184 184] (Tex. 2022) (J. Young, concurring) ("Had the Texas Constitution been presented as an alternative rather than duplicative source of law, today's case may have turned out differently. Or maybe not. We cannot know for sure until we have a case like this one that includes arguments tailored to our ''state'' constitutional law. It is clearly true that the Texas Takings Clause is broader than the federal . . . . We cannot meaningfully answer those questions unless litigants undertake substantial additional work beyond invoking federal takings doctrines.") | ||