5,933
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17 (view source)
Revision as of 15:35, June 18, 2025
, June 18no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|editor= | |editor= | ||
As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person | As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person; and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made, or secured by deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority shall be subject to the control thereof." | ||
It has been amended once. The 2009 amendment established specific limitations on the taking of private property for public use, excluded certain purposes from the definition of public use, and increased the legislative vote needed to delegate eminent domain authority to non-governmental entities. | It has been amended once. The 2009 amendment established specific limitations on the taking of private property for public use, excluded certain purposes from the definition of public use, and increased the legislative vote needed to delegate eminent domain authority to non-governmental entities. | ||
| 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) (footnotes omitted) (" | * ''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 [of an inverse-condemnation claim]: 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.'") | ||
* ''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 & footnote 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.") | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
|seo_title=Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution ("Taking Property for Public Use; Grant of Special Privileges") | |seo_title=Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution ("Taking Property for Public Use; Grant of Special Privileges") | ||
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 17, eminent domain<!--term is key search term-->, takings clause | |seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 17, Texas eminent domain<!--term is key search term-->, Texas takings clause | ||
|seo_description=No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for | |seo_description=No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for public use without adequate compensation. | ||
|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights | |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights | ||