5,933
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17 (view source)
Revision as of 10:58, June 18, 2025
, June 18no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| 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) (citation & footnotes omitted) ("At this stage in this case, the parties dispute only the third element: 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 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'', 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.") | ||