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 19:25, October 27, 2025

578 bytes removed ,  Yesterday at 19:25
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:
* ''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.")


* ''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. See, e.g., TEX. CONST. of 1869 (including the phrase "taken or applied to public use"). Because takings jurisprudence has developed primarily with tangible property interests in mind, it is understandable that claims of private property being "applied to public use" have been infrequent. After all, applying and taking are functionally equivalent when the possession and ownership of physical things are at issue; for example, applying land to public use would almost always involve total appropriation or permanent physical occupation. Cf. Loretto, 458 U.S. at 441, 102 S.Ct. 3164. 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#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.")


* ''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.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/9065"

Navigation menu