6,117
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17 (view source)
Revision as of 19:45, October 27, 2025
, Yesterday at 19:45no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* ''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) ( | * ''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#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.") | * ''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.") | ||