TLG

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

Constitution Discussion

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

Revision as of 09:44, October 28, 2025

77 bytes removed ,  Tuesday at 09:44
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
|recent=
|recent=


* ''Commons of Lake Hous., Ltd. v. City of Houston'', 711 S.W.3d 666, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9212496728385225048#p676 676] (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.'")
* ''Commons of Lake Hous., Ltd. v. City of Houston'', 711 S.W.3d 666, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9212496728385225048#p676 676] (Tex. 2025) (citation & footnotes omitted) ("At this stage in this case, the parties dispute only the third element [of the 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'', 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.")
* ''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) (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.")


* ''Jim Olive Photography v. Univ. of Hous. Sys.'', 624 S.W.3d 764, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13869168342441310828#p--- ___] (Tex. 2021) ("The final verb in the Texas Takings Clause, 'applied,' has not previously been addressed by this Court. Unlike 'damaged' and 'destroyed,' 'applied' has been included as an alternative to "taken" in each iteration of the Texas Constitution. . . . Given the plain language of the 'applied to public use' prong and our cases interpreting the 'damaged for public use' prong, it is possible that a government entity's violation of a private author's rights in a copyrighted work could in some circumstances require compensation under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution.")
* ''Jim Olive Photography v. Univ. of Hous. Sys.'', 624 S.W.3d 764, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13869168342441310828#p782 782] (Tex. 2021) ("The final verb in the Texas Takings Clause, 'applied,' has not previously been addressed by this Court. Unlike 'damaged' and 'destroyed,' 'applied' has been included . . . . Given the plain language of the 'applied to public use' prong and our cases interpreting the 'damaged for public use' prong, it is possible that a government entity's violation of a private author's rights in a copyrighted work could in some circumstances require compensation under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution.")


* ''KMS Retail Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett'', 593 S.W.3d 175, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3010365581179623555#p186 186-87] (Tex. 2019) (citation omitted) ("A city may take private property when it determines the property is necessary for a public use so long as it provides just compensation to the property owner. To establish a valid exercise of eminent domain, a municipality must show it intends to put the property to public use and that the condemnation is necessary to advance or achieve that public use. . . . Similarly, the mere fact that a particular individual, group, or enterprise may benefit will not deprive the use of its public character.")
* ''KMS Retail Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett'', 593 S.W.3d 175, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3010365581179623555#p186 186-87] (Tex. 2019) (citation omitted) ("A city may take private property when it determines the property is necessary for a public use so long as it provides just compensation to the property owner. To establish a valid exercise of eminent domain, a municipality must show it intends to put the property to public use and that the condemnation is necessary to advance or achieve that public use. . . . Similarly, the mere fact that a particular individual, group, or enterprise may benefit will not deprive the use of its public character.")
Line 63: Line 63:
* ''City of Austin v. Nalle'', 120 S.W. 996, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/120_SW_996.pdf#page=1 996] (Tex. 1909) ("Eminent domain is defined to be: 'The sovereign power vested in the state to take private property for the public use, providing first a just compensation therefor.' 15 Cyc. 557. 'Taxes are defined to be burthens, or charges, imposed by the legislative power of a state upon persons or property, to raise money for public purposes.' Clegg v. State, 42 Tex. 608. The former takes specific property (not money) upon paying compensation therefor. The other takes money, the only compensation being that it will be appropriated according to law.")
* ''City of Austin v. Nalle'', 120 S.W. 996, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/120_SW_996.pdf#page=1 996] (Tex. 1909) ("Eminent domain is defined to be: 'The sovereign power vested in the state to take private property for the public use, providing first a just compensation therefor.' 15 Cyc. 557. 'Taxes are defined to be burthens, or charges, imposed by the legislative power of a state upon persons or property, to raise money for public purposes.' Clegg v. State, 42 Tex. 608. The former takes specific property (not money) upon paying compensation therefor. The other takes money, the only compensation being that it will be appropriated according to law.")


* ''Storrie v. Houston City St. Ry. Co.'', 46 S.W. 796, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/046_SW_796.pdf#page=4 799] (Tex. 1898) ("This provision of the constitution was in force at the time the street-railway company acquired its right in the streets of Houston and before the mortgage of the trust company was executed. The rights of both the street-railway company and the mortgage company were acquired subject to the control of the legislature upon this question. The legislature had the right to enact the law of 1891, amending the charter of Houston, by which the liability of the street-car company for the cost of paving the street was enlarged.")
* ''Storrie v. Hous. City St. Ry. Co.'', 46 S.W. 796, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/046_SW_796.pdf#page=4 799] (Tex. 1898) ("This provision of the constitution was in force at the time the street-railway company acquired its right in the streets of Houston and before the mortgage of the trust company was executed. The rights of both the street-railway company and the mortgage company were acquired subject to the control of the legislature upon this question. The legislature had the right to enact the law of 1891, amending the charter of Houston, by which the liability of the street-car company for the cost of paving the street was enlarged.")


* ''Travis County v. Trogden'', 31 S.W. 358, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/031_SW_358.pdf#page=2 359] (Tex. 1895) ("In order to make such guaranty perfect, it was provided in 1876 that 'such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money.' The evil, however, did not exist in that class of cases where the right of eminent domain had been exercised in behalf of the state, whether directly, in its own name, or through one of its counties; for the state has control of its own finances and those of its governmental subdivisions . . . and the presumption must have been indulged that the state would deal justly with its citizens.")
* ''Travis County v. Trogden'', 31 S.W. 358, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/031_SW_358.pdf#page=2 359] (Tex. 1895) ("In order to make such guaranty perfect, it was provided in 1876 that 'such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money.' The evil, however, did not exist in that class of cases where the right of eminent domain had been exercised in behalf of the state, whether directly, in its own name, or through one of its counties; for the state has control of its own finances and those of its governmental subdivisions . . . and the presumption must have been indulged that the state would deal justly with its citizens.")


* ''City of Houston v. Houston City St. Ry. Co.'', 19 S.W. 127, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/019_SW_127.pdf#page=5 131] (Tex. 1892) ("[T]his particular clause of the constitution was intended to prohibit the legislature from granting any 'special privilege or immunity' in such way, or of such character, as that it could not be subsequently annulled or declared forfeited for such causes as might be defined by the law, or condemned in the exercise of eminent domain [] and it was further intended that 'all privileges and franchises' granted by the legislature, or under its authority, should at all times remain subject to legislative control and regulation.")
* ''City of Houston v. Hous. City St. Ry. Co.'', 19 S.W. 127, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/019_SW_127.pdf#page=5 131] (Tex. 1892) ("[T]his particular clause of the constitution was intended to prohibit the legislature from granting any 'special privilege or immunity' in such way, or of such character, as that it could not be subsequently annulled or declared forfeited for such causes as might be defined by the law, or condemned in the exercise of eminent domain [] and it was further intended that 'all privileges and franchises' granted by the legislature, or under its authority, should at all times remain subject to legislative control and regulation.")


* ''Keller v. City of Corpus Christi'', 50 Tex. 614, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/050_Tex_614.pdf#page=14 627-28] (1879) ("This provision as to the deposit of money in advance, was evidently intended more particularly to provide speedy adequate compensation for property taken in the exercise of the sovereign right of eminent domain, rendered more frequent by the rapidly-increasing demand for railroads and other works . . . . There is, however, a distinction between the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and that of a police regulation to meet an impending peril, by the destruction of an adjacent building to prevent the spread of fire.")
* ''Keller v. City of Corpus Christi'', 50 Tex. 614, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/050_Tex_614.pdf#page=14 627-28] (1879) ("This provision as to the deposit of money in advance, was evidently intended more particularly to provide speedy adequate compensation for property taken in the exercise of the sovereign right of eminent domain, rendered more frequent by the rapidly-increasing demand for railroads and other works . . . . There is, however, a distinction between the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and that of a police regulation to meet an impending peril, by the destruction of an adjacent building to prevent the spread of fire.")


* ''Buffalo Bayou, B. & C.R. Co. v. Ferris'', 26 Tex. 588, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/026_Tex_588.pdf#page=11 598] (1863) ("It cannot be questioned that a railroad for general travel, or the transportation of produce for the country at large, is a 'public use,' for the construction of which private property may be taken or applied upon adequate compensation for it being made. That the road for the construction of which the property when taken is to be applied is a corporation of private individuals to whose benefit the profits of the road, when complete, will alone accrue, furnishes no valid objection to such appropriation of private property.")
* ''Buffalo Bayou, B. & C. R. Co. v. Ferris'', 26 Tex. 588, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/026_Tex_588.pdf#page=11 598] (1863) ("It cannot be questioned that a railroad for general travel, or the transportation of produce for the country at large, is a 'public use,' for the construction of which private property may be taken or applied upon adequate compensation for it being made. That the road for the construction of which the property when taken is to be applied is a corporation of private individuals to whose benefit the profits of the road, when complete, will alone accrue, furnishes no valid objection to such appropriation of private property.")


|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")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/9065...9078"