• About
    • Justin Hodge
    • Luke Ellis
  • Contact Us
  • Eminent Domain FAQs
  • Resources
    • Fair Market Value Considerations
    • Highest and Best Use
    • Highway Expansions
    • Pipelines
    • Power Lines
    • Water Rights
    • What is Eminent Domain?
  • Sitemap
  • Thank You

Texas Condemnation

~ Texas Eminent Domain Explained

Texas Condemnation

Category Archives: Politics

Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge (Program Co-Chair) – Faculty at Houston Eminent Domain Conference

09 Wednesday May 2018

Posted by texascondemnation in Houston, Houston eminent domain, Pipelines, Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Texas Eminent Domain Lawyer

≈ Leave a comment

Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge (Program Co-Chair), Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, are both faculty at the upcoming Houston, Texas Eminent Domain: CLE International Conference on Thursday, May 10, 2018 and Friday, May 11, 2018.  Luke will be speaking on Thursday at 10:00 am on Texas Eminent Domain Legislative Reform Efforts and Justin will be speaking as part of a panel on Friday at 10:15 am on the Legal Impacts of Hurricane Harvey.   The full conference schedule can be found here.  We hope you can join us at the conference.

Screen Shot 2018-05-09 at 11.15.20 AM

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

‪Vote to support to end #eminentdomain ‬for private gain. YES on SB 740 @loiskolkhorst

18 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by texascondemnation in common-carrier status, Denbury, Pipelines, Politics, SB 747, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Texas Eminent Domain Lawyer, Texas Transportation Commission

≈ Leave a comment

‪Vote to support to end #eminentdomain ‬for private gain. YES on SB 740 @loiskolkhorst

Please watch the “‘TRANS PECOS’ | TEASER” on Vimeo.

 

The website for “TRANS PECOS” can be viewed here.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

Luke Ellis interviewed on Fox News: Border wall faces legal battles over eminent domain in Texas

12 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by texascondemnation in Border Fence, Border Wall, Landowner Rights, Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Texas Eminent Domain Lawyer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Border Fence, Border Wall, Condemnation, Eminent Domain

IMG_1623

The story can be viewed on our website.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

Texas Supreme Court Pipeline Ruling Sets back Texas Land Owner Rights

03 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by texascondemnation in common-carrier status, Denbury, Environmental Permitting, Landowner Rights, Pipelines, Politics, Property Rights, Supreme Court, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Appellate Court, Common Carrier, Common Carrier Test, common-carrier status, Denbury, Denbury Green Pipeline, landowner rights, Landowners, Opinion, politics, property rights, Public Benefit, Public Use, supreme court of texas, Texas, texas property rights, Texas Rice Land Partners, Third Party Contract

According to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution, applications of the eminent-domain power must be for public use. Jurisdictions have developed legal and administrative structures which allow private interests limited uses of the power. For Texas pipelines, the granting of eminent-domain authority can only take place when a project fulfills certain requirements. Chief among these is the ability to prove that the pipeline has a public use, meaning it is not being built exclusively for and used only by the entity condemning the land. Statewide, the common-carrier definition, and the derivative test determining whether the definition can describe a given pipeline, is used to establish and enforce the public use requirement.

In the recently decided Denbury Green Pipeline – Texas, LLC v. Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., the Texas Supreme Court clarified the access conditions for common-carrier status. In 2015, an appellate court established two additional barriers to common-carrier status. First, it held that a pipeline’s common carrier status must result from an examination of the intent of the constructing party to use the pipeline for public benefit at the onset of the project’s contemplation. Second, the pipeline’s use must serve a “substantial” public interest. The Supreme Court decision reversed these two holdings, the first on the grounds that it misinterpreted case law, and the second because it proceeded beyond the limits of precedent. The Supreme Court also held that Denbury’s post-construction product transportation contracts with third parties, and the fact that certain third parties would retain product title, was sufficient to evidence public use and therefore common-carrier status after the pipeline is built. This opinion is a significant blow to Texas landowner rights.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

It Will Take More Than $75 Million to Build High-Speed Rail without Power of Eminent Domain

31 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in Dallas, High-Speed Rail, Houston, Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Lawyer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Attorneys, Austin, Austin condemnation, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Blog, Condemnation, Dallas, Dallas Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain, High-Speed Rail, Texas Central, Texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas eminent domain lawyer

Despite its recent funds, the company behind the contentious high-speed passenger rail line between Houston and Dallas may not succeed without the use of eminent domain – a power reserved for takings that serve the public interest.

Texas Central, the company working on developing a high-speed passenger rail line between Houston and Dallas, announced the procurement of $75 million in funding for the project and the hiring of a new CEO last week. This funding will certainly help Texas Central take the next steps needed to develop the rail line, but the company’s efforts may be in vain if it cannot use eminent domain to secure the land needed for the project. Some have even said that the line cannot succeed without eminent domain.

The company recently avoided roadblocks set in place by Texas legislatures, some of whom aimed to prevent the company from using eminent domain for the high-speed rail (read our blogs about Senate Bill 1601 here and here). Texas Central has consistently advertised that it can provide better deals for landowners than a governmental agency could and that the rail uses a fraction of the fuel used by commercial aircrafts, but the thought of a privately-owned company invoking the power of eminent domain for a potentially profitable venture has galvanized many Texans against the rail. Many have joined the efforts of Texans Against High-Speed Rail, a group organized around public opposition to the rail.

“Our aim is to protect private property rights, maintain efficient modes of transportation, and prevent the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars or public subsidies for high-speed rail transportation,” the group stated in its mission statement (Click here to visit the group’s website).

Texas Central’s newly-appointed CEO Tim Keith, a Dallas resident who has nearly 25 years of experience in large-scale real estate and infrastructure project development, recognizes this local opposition to the company’s project.

tim-keith-21-750xx450-600-7-0

Tim Keith

“When it impacts communities and people’s land, it’s very personal,” Keith said to the Dallas Morning News, adding that he plans to better communicate the potential benefits of the project to the public.

Texas Central has submitted its rail line to the Federal Railroad Administration and is awaiting the results of an environmental impact review of the project.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

If you have any questions about this blog, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

Supreme Court Rules California Raisin Reserve Requirement is a Taking

17 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in Politics, Property Rights, Supreme Court, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorneys, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Blog, Condemnation, Eminent Domain, Government takings, Horne v. USDA, Houston eminent domain lawyer, politics, property rights, Raisins, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Texas condemnation lawyer

In its most recent round of decisions, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of our favorite raisin farmers in Horne v. USDA and determined that the raisin reserve requirement mandated by the California Raisin Marketing Order did indeed constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment (read our previous blog on Horne v. USDA here). This ruling is a welcome move in the right direction to better protect individual property rights.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court’s 8-1 opinion in which Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito concurred in full and Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a solo dissent.

“The reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee.”

As with almost any government taking, the original property owner is entitled to just compensation for his or her property. The Supreme Court majority determined the amount initially assessed by the government as a fine for the Horne’s withholding their raisins from the reserve constituted the fair-market price for the Horne’s raisins.

“The Government has already calculated the amount of just compensation in this case, when it fined the Hornes the fair market value of the raisins: $483,843.53,” Roberts wrote. “There is accordingly no need for a remand; the Hornes should simply be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalty they were assessed when they resisted the Government’s effort to take their raisins. This case, in litigation for more than a decade, has gone on long enough” (citations omitted).

This point of the ruling garnered a dissent in part by Breyer, who reasoned that a lower court should be the proper venue for determining compensation for the Hornes.

In her dissent, Sotomayor reasoned that the marketing order does not constitute a per se taking and was, instead, a reasonable government regulation on partaking in the raisin market. Sotomayor also construed the marketing order as a regulatory taking rather than a total, per se taking because the Hornes held a residual interest in the reserve raisins. She reasoned they would receive a portion of the proceeds if the government sold those raisins and, therefore, had not lost all of their property rights to those raisins.

Her reasoning did not prevail in this case, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Horne v. USDA sets a precedent that will help better protect property owners from unjust takings.

Marvin Horne, who has been entangled with this matter for more than a decade, said he was astounded by this victory, the LA Times reported.

“It’s been 11 years, and a lot of water over the dam,” he said.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

The Eminent Domain Reforms that Could Have Been

19 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Austin condemnation, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Condemnation, Condemnation claims, Congress, debate, elections, Eminent Domain, house of representatives, politics, reform, senate, Texas, Texas Condemnation, Texas condemnation lawyer

As Texas’ 84th Legislative Regular Session closed on June 1, several bills pertinent to eminent-domain reform were sent to the political junkyard where other legislative “almosts” and “could-have-beens” also reside.

Senate Bill 1601, which would have excluded high-speed rail from using eminent domain and thwarted the development of the Texas Central High-Speed Railway between Dallas and Houston, never made it out of the Senate Transportation Committee. The bill was initiated by Senator Lois Kolkhorst, R – Brenham, who filed it with the Texas Senate on March 12 this year in order to better control the use of eminent domain by private companies. To read more about this bill, please read our blog.

Senator Kolkhorst also initiated Senate Bill 474, which died in the Texas House of Representatives after passing through the Senate by a 25-6 vote. In an effort to encourage fair initial offers, the bill would have required those seeking to acquire property to reimburse landowners for their attorneys’ fees if a panel of special commissioners, judge or jury determined the value of the land to be at least 20 percent higher than the amount offered by the condemnor during a condemnation proceeding. The bill initially required compensation only if the value exceeded the offer by at least 10 percent, but that number was changed to 20 percent in the Senate Committee on State Affairs. The House Land and Resource Management Committee left the bill pending. To read more about SB 474, please read our blog.

Senate Bill 479 faced a fate similar to SB 474’s as it made its way out of the Senate in a 29-1 vote only to be left perpetually pending in the House Business and Industry Committee. The bill, authored by Senator Charles Schwertner, R – Georgetown, would have more narrowly defined the phrase “actual progress.” In Texas, a landowner can repurchase his or her land if the condemning party has not made “actual progress” toward the intended use of the property within 10 years of the taking. “Actual progress,” however, can be difficult to define, and SB 479 would have helped remediate that ambiguity. To read more about SB 479, please read our blog.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

If you have any questions about this post, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

High-Speed Train Between Houston and Dallas May Not Come So Fast

11 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in Dallas, Houston, Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Attorneys, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Condemnation, Congress, Dallas, debate, Eminent Domain, High-Speed Rail, Houston, Houston condemnation, Houston eminent domain lawyer, politics, SB 1601, Texas, texas eminent domain, Texas eminent domain lawyer

The anticipated high-speed passenger rail line that would travel between Houston and Dallas may not come to fruition if the Texas Senate passes a bill proposed to limit the eminent-domain powers of companies that own such lines.

The proposed bill, initiated by Senator Lois Kolkhorst, R – Brenham, defines a high-speed rails as an “intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour” and excludes companies that own such rail systems from exercising the power of eminent domain for those projects. The Texas Senate Transportation Committee voted Senate Bill 1601 out of committee on April 8, according to The Texas Tribune.

Texas Central High-Speed Railway, the private company developing the $12 billion train line, has maintained that it has private funding for the entirety of the project and would be able to compensate landowners for the property needed to complete the project more than the government typically can during condemnation.

“We have the ability to pay more because it’s not taxpayer dollars,” Texas Central President Robert Eckels said. “We, in fact, can pay more as a private company and expect that we will be paying more.”

Proponents of the proposed bill argue that the private company should not have the authority to use eminent domain for its own profits.

“Eminent domain is probably the most horrific power that the government has, and to dole that out to individual companies that can misuse that or use it for projects that result in profits, we have to be very careful about doing that,” said Senator Bob Hall, R – Edgewood.

Representatives of Texas Central, however, feel that the company is being singled out as hundreds of private firms are currently authorized to use eminent domain in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.

“All that we ask is that this train be treated like any other private train in Texas,” said Richard Lawless, Texas Central chairman and CEO. “It does not seem fair to us that this train should be prohibited in Texas just because it goes faster than other trains.”

While the state government may not authorize the use of eminent domain to develop this project, Texas Central has proposed its route to the Federal Railroad Administration.

“Quite honestly, I’d rather do this as a Texas project,” Eckels said.

The train is expected to travel to Dallas from Houston in less than 90 minutes, making one stop in College Station. The company hopes to complete the project by 2021, but a few legislative road blocks may slow its progress.

Read the proposed SB 1601 here.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

If you have any questions about this article, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

JMEH Partners Testify in Front of Senate Committee, Advocate for Bill to Stop Eminent-Domain Abuse

27 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2015, Attorneys, Austin, Austin condemnation, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Blog, Condemnation, Condemnation claims, Congress, debate, Eminent Domain, Houston, Houston condemnation, Houston eminent domain lawyer, politics, Senate Bill 474, Senator Kolkhorst, Texas, Texas Senate

Marrs Ellis & Hodge, LLP, partners Justin Hodge and Luke Ellis testified in front of the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs on March 9, 2015, in favor of a bill that would better protect landowners in eminent domain proceedings and help ensure that the fear of legal fees would not prevent landowners from seeking just compensation for their property.

Senate Bill 474, proposed by Senator Lois Kolkhorst, R — Brenham, would require those seeking to acquire property to reimburse landowners for their attorney’s fees if the award by the special commissioners exceeds the condemnor’s offer for the property prior to the proceedings by at least 10 percent.* The bill would also require reimbursement of attorney’s fees if the case moves beyond the special commissioners’ hearing to court and the award exceeds the condemnor’s offer prior to the proceeding by at least 10 percent.

Luke Ellis

Luke Ellis

Ellis and Hodge were the first among the five individuals
invited to testify in front of the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs. Ellis opened the testimonies by describing a situation in which a landowner purchases a piece of land for $300,000. The landowner then builds a home on the land and spends $200,000 on construction, bringing the landowner’s total cost to $500,000.

An entity wants to use that land for a project that would serve some public purpose, and that entity offers the landowner $300,000. The landowner, knowing the amount he or she has spent on the property, then seeks legal counsel from an attorney. The attorney fights the case for a period of one to four years, at the end of which a jury awards the landowner $500,000.

“Has that landowner recovered in full for the benefit that [his or her] land has provided to our entire community?” Ellis asked the committee after setting up his example. “The answer, under the Texas system as it exists today, is a very definitive no.”

Ellis stated that the landowner does not recover in full in this process because of the attorney’s fees and legal costs required to combat low offers in court, especially when the landowner has to pay for experts and appraisals to counter the condemnor’s experts and appraisals. Ellis then went on to read the language in both the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that requires condemning authorities to give landowners just compensation for their properties and Article 1, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution that requires adequate compensation.

“But, in Texas, as the system exists, you don’t get just compensation or adequate compensation,” Ellis said. “You get adequate compensation less the cost it takes you to achieve adequate compensation, and that’s not a fair system for Texas landowners.”

SB 474 graphic2

This graphic is not representative of every path a condemnation case can follow and does not in any way offer legal advice. This graphic simply presents a the number of paths a hypothetical case could follow in context of SB 474.

The debate on SB 474 centers on whether the bill would have a fiscal impact on the government and increase the cost of condemnation. When presenting her bill, Senator Kolkhorst stated that the bill would not significantly increase costs to the government, and Ellis agreed with this in his testimony. Ellis said this bill would decrease litigation as it would incentivize condemning authorities to make a fair offer that landowners would want to accept initially.

“Condemnors have absolutely no incentive to treat landowners fairly. They’re a business. There is no penalty to make low offers to start,” Ellis said of the current system, adding that condemning entities often make low offers to “wash away” those afraid of a legal battle.

Ellis also described the abuse of power that often occurs in these legal battles as condemnors who can afford to run up legal costs and/or expert fees often do so to tire the landowner’s financial resources and ability to fight low offers.

“We believe [SB 474] is the first and a very strong step in trying to balance the scale,” Ellis said.

Hodge also testified and gave a personal testimony of his family’s experience in an eminent-domain proceeding. His family owned a ranch near the Bell-Williamson county line, and his grandfather had spent his lifetime drilling more than 70 water wells on that ranch looking for water to feed their livestock.

Hodge’s grandfather passed away, and Hodge’s father found seven commercial-grade water wells on the property. Hodge’s family contracted with local communities to make use of those water wells until the State of Texas, through the Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”), decided to build a safety rest stop on the ranch in 2006.

“They wanted 28 acres, and, in fact, they were taking the property where six of those seven commercial water wells existed,” Hodge said. “That was a shock to us. We begged and pleaded with TxDOT to move the safety rest stop.”

TxDOT did not move the location of the rest stop. Hodge’s family fought the state’s $350,000 offer for six years. The state did not include any compensation for the water underneath their property in its offer and argued that the water underneath the property did not belong to the landowners, a position that Hodge said ran contrary to nearly a century of case law in Texas.

The Hodge family case went in front of a jury of six people in Bell County, who awarded the family $5.8 million as just compensation for their loss of the water and land.

“You’re probably asking, ‘Well, aren’t you made whole? Isn’t your family made whole in that situation?’ And, the answer is no,” Hodge said to the committee. “We had to pay, as a family, more than $2 million in attorney fees to get that $5.8 million, and that doesn’t include expert costs associated with [the legal battle]. That was money my grandfather had worked hard for to pay for college educations for his great grandchildren, my father’s grandchildren, and my children.”

“This is a bill that will help landowners like my family, landowners…who have to bear a huge cost for the community” Hodge added. “[SB 474] stops abuse.”

Senator Kolkhorst modeled the bill after similar bills in effect in other states in an effort to help stop this abuse.

“The spirit of SB 474 is just to say, if you need to, you can access the courts,” Kolkhorst said. “And, if you were wronged, those fees will be paid by those who wronged you.”

SB 474 is currently pending in the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs. If passed as currently written, the bill would go in effect September of 2015.

*In Texas, if a landowner and the condemning authority cannot agree to an amount for the property, a panel of three court-appointed special commissioners will determine an award for the property.  If either party objects to the award, the case then proceeds to a court where a judge or jury determines the fair-market value of the property in question.

If you want to hear Ellis and Hodge’s testimonies, please visit  http://youtu.be/H9psHmXLexw. If you have any questions about SB 474, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…

New RRC Rules Require Pipeline Companies to Do More than Simply Check a Box

13 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in Pipelines, Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorneys, Austin, Austin condemnation, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Blog, Condemnation, Condemnation claims, Eminent Domain, Houston condemnation, RRC, Texas, texas eminent domain, Texas eminent domain lawyer, Texas Railroad Commission, Texas Supreme Court

The Texas Railroad Commission’s (RRC) new pipeline permitting rules that require oil companies to verify their common-carrier status went into effect last week, marking a significant move away from the previous rules that simply required companies to check a box to claim common-carrier status.

The RRC has maintained that its T-4 permit only allows a company to operate a pipeline and does not automatically entrust the company with the power of eminent domain. The limit of this power, the RRC says, remains with the court as it always has.

The new rules will require up-front proof of common-carrier status. Pipeline companies previously only offered proof that they carried unaffiliated third-party product if and when its common-carrier status was challenged.

This rule change comes after the landmark 2012 case in which the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a pipeline company must do more than show its T-4 permit as proof of its common-carrier status. (Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green-Texas, LLC, 363 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2012)).

If you have any questions about the new rules or anything related to eminent domain, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge (jhodge@jmehlaw.com).

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X

Like this:

Like Loading…
← Older posts

Stay up to date with Justin and Luke

texascondemnation

texascondemnation

Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge are partners with Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP. Justin heads the firm's eminent domain practice in the Houston office. Luke heads the firm's eminent domain practice in the Austin office. Luke Ellis is widely recognized as one of Texas’s top young lawyers—and one of the top lawyers of any age practicing in the area of eminent domain. Mr. Ellis has broad experience and has enjoyed success in many types of civil litigation. Justin Hodge is a trial lawyer who represents Texas landowners in condemnation, eminent-domain, and real-estate lawsuits. He represents landowners in condemnation proceedings, not the governmental authorities or private companies taking property. Mr. Hodge has handled complex condemnation and eminent-domain cases throughout the State of Texas. If you have questions about any of the issues raised in this blog, we invite you to discuss them with us at jhodge@mehlaw.com or lellis@mehlaw.com.

View Full Profile →

RSS TexasCondemnation

  • Justin Hodge, Kyle Baum, and Hannah Sliva Speak at No East Loop BBQ Social in Bryan, Texas April 15, 2025
    Last week, Justin Hodge, Kyle Baum, and Hannah Sliva had the privilege of speaking at the April No East Loop …Continue reading →
    clshouston
  • Justin Hodge Interviewed Regarding the Trident Intrastate Pipeline Project on Houston Matters February 10, 2025
    Justin Hodge, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on Houston Matters with Craig Cohen regarding the upcoming Kinder …Continue reading →
    clshouston
  • Kyle Baum Interviewed by  CBS7 News Regarding the DeLa Express Pipeline, Raising Eminent Domain Concerns October 9, 2024
    Kyle Baum, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on CBS7 news regarding the upcoming DeLa Express Pipeline project …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Justin Hodge Interviewed on Silberman Law Firm’s Weekly Docket Podcast re: Eminent Domain March 7, 2024
    Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, Justin Hodge, was interviewed on Silberman Law Firm’s Weekly Docket Podcast. You can listen …Continue reading →
    clshouston
  • Jacob Merkord on Fox 7 Austin News Regarding Matterhorn Pipeline in Williamson County, Texas August 3, 2022
    Jacob Merkord, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on Fox 7 Austin news regarding the upcoming Matterhorn Pipeline …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Luke Ellis Interviewed on KXAN-NBC News Austin Regarding Matterhorn Pipeline Project July 13, 2022
    Luke Ellis, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on KXAN-NBC news in Austin regarding the upcoming Matterhorn pipeline …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Watch Justin Hodge on Fox26 News – Texas Supreme Court Approves Eminent Domain for High Speed Train Between Houston and Dallas June 30, 2022
    Justin Hodge was interviewed on Fox26 news about the Texas Supreme Court’s recent approval of eminent domain for the high …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • ALI CLE Eminent Domain Conference – Scottsdale, Arizona January 28, 2022
    Justin Hodge with Marrs Ellis and Hodge presented at the 2022 ALI CLE Eminent Domain Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. You …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Brazoria County Bar Association – Eminent Domain Presentation January 20, 2022
    Justin Hodge, Kyle Baum, and Kyle Hlavinka presented on eminent domain at the January 2022 Brazoria County Bar Association luncheon. …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Oral Arguments Held in Tropical Storm Harvey Downstream Flooding Cases January 13, 2022
    On January 12, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard Milton v. United States (The Tropical Storm …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation

Follow Our Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Tweets by JMEHCondemn

Twitter Updates

Tweets by TXCondemnation

Twitter Updates

Tweets by JMEHLaw

TexasCondemnation

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Pages

  • About
    • Justin Hodge
    • Luke Ellis
  • Contact Us
  • Eminent Domain FAQs
  • Resources
    • Fair Market Value Considerations
    • Highest and Best Use
    • Highway Expansions
    • Pipelines
    • Power Lines
    • Water Rights
    • What is Eminent Domain?
  • Sitemap
  • Thank You

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...

    %d