Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Self'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11329341778052650525#p--- ___] (Tex. 2024) (citations & footnotes omitted) (" | * ''Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Self'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11329341778052650525#p--- ___] (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.") | ||
* ''Rodriguez v. City of Robinson'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11365408367965305922#p--- ___] (Tex. 2023) (" ... ") | * ''Rodriguez v. City of Robinson'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11365408367965305922#p--- ___] (Tex. 2023) (" ... ") |