• 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

Tag Archives: property rights

What Austin’s Light Rail Project Means for Property Owners

07 Friday Aug 2026

Posted by texascondemnation in High-Speed Rail, Highest and Best Use, Landowner Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Texas Eminent Domain Lawyer

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorneys, Austin condemnation, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Condemnation, Eminent Domain, property rights, Texas, Texas Condemnation, texas eminent domain

Austin’s Light Rail Project is moving from planning to property taking. The Austin Transit Partnership (ATP) has already begun taking land, and more property owners can expect to receive survey requests, purchase offers, and other notices as the project moves forward.

The first phase of the project will span nearly 10 miles through North, Downtown, South, and East Austin. To make way for the rail line, stations, and maintenance facility, the project is expected to seize approximately 85 acres, displace dozens of businesses, remove hundreds of on-street parking spaces, and permanently reshape parts of the city.

Light rail development in East Riverside, Austin via Austin American-Statesman

With construction set to begin in 2027, time is of the essence. Austin’s Light Rail Project may lead to reduced property value, lost access, decreased business visibility, parking impacts, relocation costs, and other damages that may not be reflected in ATP’s initial offer. Before accepting an offer or signing any documents, speak with an experienced eminent domain attorney to identify damages that ATP may overlook.

For decades, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP has represented Texas property owners in eminent domain and condemnation matters. If you have received a notice from the Austin Transit Partnership, call (512) 215-4078 today for a free consultation with one of our experienced eminent domain attorneys.

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 Howard-Solstice Transmission Line: What You Should Know

30 Thursday Jul 2026

Posted by texascondemnation in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorneys, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Condemnation, electric transmission line, Eminent Domain, howard solstice, property rights, Texas, texas eminent domain

A transmission line can cost you far more than the land covered by the easement. If your property is affected by the proposed Howard-Solstice Transmission Line, you could face reduced property value, limits on future development, and damages that may not be reflected in the utility company’s initial offer.

The Howard-Solstice Transmission Line is a proposed 765-kilovolt project that would connect substations near San Antonio and Fort Stockton, crossing 14 counties in South and West Texas. High-voltage electric transmission lines like Howard-Solstice can significantly reduce property values, diminish scenic views and rural character, and disrupt the way of life that you worked hard to build.

765kV transmission line running through southwest Virginia via Google Maps

This project is now moving quickly. The Public Utility Commission of Texas will soon issue a final route decision. With your property value at stake, now is the time to reach out to an eminent domain attorney.

For decades, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP has represented Texas landowners in eminent domain and condemnation matters. If your property may be affected by the Howard-Solstice Transmission Line, our experienced eminent domain attorneys can help you understand your rights and protect your property. Call (512) 215-4078 for a free consultation today.

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…

Massive New Transmission Lines Are Headed Across Texas

10 Friday Jul 2026

Posted by texascondemnation in 765kV Transmission Lines, Power Lines, Powerlines

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

765kv, Attorneys, Austin condemnation, Condemnation, electric, Eminent Domain, high voltage, property rights, Texas, texas eminent domain, transmission lines

Texas’ first 765-kilovolt transmission lines could permanently reshape the land they cross. If your property falls along the proposed Bell County East to Big Hill or Big Hill Switch to Sand Lake Switch routes, you could face a massive utility easement, imposing transmission towers, reduced property value, and restrictions that may affect your land for generations.

Photo by Piedmont Environmental Council

These will be the first 765 kV transmission lines ever built in Texas, carrying nearly twice the capacity of the state’s existing 345 kV lines. Developed by Oncor Electric Company and the Lower Colorado River Authority Transmission Services Corporation (LCRA), the projects would span more than 390 miles across 25 Texas counties.1 These are 200-foot-wide easements with transmission lines reaching up to 160 feet tall. Projects of this scale can permanently alter your landscape, your property value, restrict future land use, and leave lasting impacts.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas is expected to select the final routes soon. If your property is included, you may begin receiving survey requests, right-of-entry agreements, and easement offers. Before signing any documents or accepting an offer, it’s important that you speak with an experienced eminent domain attorney. 

Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP represents Texas landowners in eminent domain and condemnation matters. If your property is affected by the proposed 765 kV transmission lines, we can help evaluate the impact on your land, identify overlooked damages, and ensure you receive fair compensation. Call (512) 215-4078 today for a free consultation.

  1.  The 25 counties being affected include: Bell, Burnet, Concho, Coryell, Crane, Crockett, Ector, Irion, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Menard, Milam, Mills, Pecos, Reagan, Reeves, San Saba, Schleicher, Tom Green, Upton, Ward, Williamson, and Winkler. ↩︎

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…

Houston Churches Face Goliath in Eminent-Domain Battle

21 Friday Aug 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorneys, Austin, Austin condemnation, Austin eminent domain lawyer, Blog, Church, Condemnation, Condemnation claims, Eminent Domain, Houston, Houston condemnation, Houston eminent domain lawyer, property rights, Texas, Texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas eminent domain lawyer

He and the church have helped congregants through drug addictions and gang violence, establishing a youth center and food pantry as part of the church’s mission, but they may have encountered a problem they cannot overcome: the power of eminent domain.

Bishop Roy Lee Kossie has been preaching at Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church in Houston’s Fifth Ward for 50 years, starting his work in 1965 when the area had gained notoriety as one of the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods.

At that time, the Fifth Ward became known as the “Bloody Nickel.” But, decades before the spur of its neighborhood violence, locals simply called it the “Nickel.” The neighborhood had served as a hub for minority-owned businesses and development during an era of redlining and de facto segregation. Congressman Mickey Leland and Congresswoman Barbara Jordan are products of the Fifth Ward, both attending Phillis Wheatley High School on Lyons Avenue, one of the nation’s largest black schools before desegregation.

The neighborhood, once flourishing with the hustle-and-bustle of local businesses, began to change in the 60s, according to the Texas State Historical Association, when upwardly mobile residents moved out to seek broader opportunities that stemmed from integration. Some attribute the neighborhood’s economic and social fall to Highway 59’s exclusion of Lyons Avenue and Jensen Drive – two of the Fifth’s busiest streets at the time – as exits on the major roadway, according to Houston History Magazine.

“The decline was slow,” Patricia Pando wrote in the Houston History Magazine. “Businesses did not disappear overnight. Nevertheless, by the late 1960s, the Lyons Avenue and Jensen Drive intersection was all but abandoned except for the still booming nightclub activity.”

The area’s decline did not, however, scare Bishop Kossie away from his church on Lyons Avenue. The church worked to acquire property, including the lots of two neighboring nightclubs, for its ministry.

“People shot first and asked questions later,” he said in a news release from the Liberty Institute. “But, we love this community. This is where the Lord called us and this is where we want to stay.”

He and the church have helped congregants through drug addictions and gang violence, establishing a youth center and food pantry as part of the church’s mission, but they may have encountered a problem they cannot overcome: the power of eminent domain.

The Houston Housing Authority (“HHA”) has made offers to purchase three of the church’s properties and has threatened to use eminent domain if those offers are not accepted, according to a lawsuit filed August 3 by Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church (“Latter Day”) and Christian Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church (“Christian Fellowship”). Liberty Institute is representing the churches and stated that the HHA was also seeking property owned by Christian Fellowship, a church that has been in the neighborhood for nearly 40 years.

The two churches in Houston’s Fifth Ward assert that the HHA’s use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project infringes upon the churches’ right to practice religion freely as the entity is seeking to take an “undeveloped” plot that Latter Day currently uses for parking and for its outdoor ministry in addition to other properties owned by the churches.

The HHA was seeking a total of four parcels from the two churches, three from Latter Day and one from Christian Fellowship, according to the Houston Chronicle. Christian Fellowship resides on one of those parcels, and the HHA planned to demolish the church to build a library, according to a lawyer for the Liberty Institute quoted in the Houston Chronicle Aug. 4.

The HHA initiated a redevelopment project in the Houston neighborhood in partnership with the Fifth Ward Community Redevelopment Corporation (“FWCRC”), an organization dedicated to revitalizing the historic Houston neighborhood through various development projects. The project, however, has come under public scrutiny since the lawsuit was filed. The HHA and the FWCRC altered their initial plan in response to the criticism, and their new plan would allow Pastor Quinton Smith to continue his 20-year career at Christian Fellowship.

“Toward ensuring [Pastor Smith’s] congregation continues its important presence in this community, I have asked our authority’s president, Tory Gunsolley, to work with our consultants to create an alternate development plan that does not include the property of First Christian Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church,” Chairman of the Houston Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Lance Gilliam said. “Unfortunately, that alternate plan will not allow us to include a new library. We recognize, however, that this sacrifice is balanced by the very real impact Pastor Smith and his congregation will have on the lives of existing and future residents of the Fifth Ward.”

Despite this alteration, the HHA and the FWCRC still plan to acquire Latter Day’s property to build a private health clinic.

“Although I applaud Bishop Kossie’s and his congregation’s impact on the quality of life in the Fifth Ward, I cannot provide him any comfort regarding our disagreement,” Gusnolley said.

The court has granted the churches a temporary restraining order to keep the housing authority off their properties but has not yet decided on whether the potential HHA taking violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The HHA and the FWCRC may have noble intentions for the Fifth Ward as the FWCRC has a history of involvement in the community that includes the building of more than 300 homes in an effort to revitalize the Nickel. But, if we have learned anything since Kelo, it is that economic growth and development should not be cause enough to infringe upon someone’s constitutionally-protected property rights. Latter Day purchased its parcels of land with a vision in mind, and the HHA should not come between the church and that vision without having a compelling reason vested in the public interest to do so.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

If you have any questions about this blog, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge (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…

College Station, Texas – Property Owner and Landowner Rights Conference

07 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in College Station, JMEH Law News, Landowner Rights, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Texas Eminent Domain Lawyer

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Austin condemnation, Austin Eminent Domain Attorney, Austin eminent domain lawyer, College Station Eminent Domain, Houston condemnation, Houston Condemnation Lawyer, Houston Eminent Domain Attorney, Houston eminent domain lawyer, landowner rights, property rights, Texas Condemnation, Texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas eminent domain lawyer, Texas Lawyer

College Station has been a hub for growth in recent years, and this growth has triggered the development of several large-scale infrastructure projects that will require the use of eminent-domain to reach fruition. In an effort to help educate local landowners of their rights in these proceedings, Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge hosted the Property Owner and Land Owner Rights Conference on May 9 in College Station.

Aggie projects

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet

Tiffany Lashmet

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist who focuses on Agricultural Law at Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, spoke to those in attendance about easement negotiations and rights. Lashmet writes and maintains the Texas Agriculture Law blog for A&M, a site that has been regarded as one of the top legal blogs in the nation.

“Condemnation proceedings have very different procedures than other civil cases,” she wrote in one blog. “It is important for landowners to understand the condemnation process in case they ever find themselves faced with a condemnation suit.”

JMEH partners Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge also presented at the conference and provided a summary of Texas Senate and House bills pertaining to eminent domain. Most of the bills discussed did not make their way into legislation at the close of Texas’ 84th Legislative Session. The two also went over what the landowners affected by nearby projects could expect in an eminent-domain lawsuit.

“There were dozens of concerned landowners in attendance who are deeply impacted by these projects,” Hodge said.

The conference also included discussions about land valuation, typical valuation disputes in condemnation cases, and information about what to look for when obtaining an appraiser.

If you have any questions regarding this seminar or any other projects, please feel free to contact Luke Ellis (lellis@jmehlaw.com) or Justin Hodge (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…

Tesoro Logistics Responsible for Recent Oil Spill, Landowner to Receive Compensation for Damages

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by texascondemnation in JMEH Law News, Pipelines, Politics, Property Rights, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Condemnation, Eminent Domain, Keystone, Keystone Pipeline XL, landowner rights, Landowners, North Dakota, oil, Oil Spill, pipeline, property rights, Tesoro, Tesoro Corp, Tesoro Logistics, Texas

A Texas-based oil company discovered a leak in one of its pipelines in North Dakota after a local farmer reported it to ND officials on Sept. 29, but the oil company did not spill this news until 11 days after discovering the pipeline rupture that released an estimated more-than 20,000 barrels of crude oil.

State officials initially reported a 750-barrel spill that the company in question, Tesoro Logistics LP, did not publicize because of the smaller initial estimate and what it considered to be a lack of environmental damage.

Kris Roberts, an environmental geologist with the North Dakota Health Department, was quoted in a New York Times article stating that Tesoro officials reported the spill to the state within 24 hours of first discovery and that the state does not have to release information of all oil spills publicly.

While Tesoro responded to the spill promptly, the cleanup process could take a couple of years and will cost an estimated $4 million. The local wheat farmer, Steve Jensen, who notified the State Department of Health of the oil spill after seeing crude oil coating the wheels of his combine, will also receive compensation for damages to his field that could keep his wheat crops out for a couple of years.  He and Tesoro are negotiating a settlement in regards to this matter.

The spill seems to have originated from a hole — about a quarter-inch in diameter — in a segment of the 20-year-old pipeline originally built by BP in 1993 but purchased by Tesoro in 2001, according to Reuters. The pipeline runs 35 miles within the state.

Many people have criticized Tesoro for not detecting the spill of about 20,600 gallons over 7.3 acres, or the equivalent of seven football fields according to the NYT, and the spill comes during an oil boom for the state following its 1951 discovery of oil. This spill surely will not help mitigate those concerned about the much larger Keystone XL pipeline expansion that will cross international borders and include 1,700 new miles of pipeline if approved. The Keystone Pipeline did not see its day in Congress during the debt-ceiling debates, and a decision on its expansion will likely not come until 2014.

TransCanada, the company heading the Keystone project, Tesoro Corp. and other pipeline owners cannot afford to slack on detecting leaks under the current political climate. These companies must employ vigilance and preemptive measures to mitigate environmental concerns and to protect landowners like Jensen whose income depends on the land surrounding oil pipelines.

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Note: Tesoro Logistics LP is a partnership formed by Tesoro Corp. 

To read more about the spill, please click 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…

Image

Court rules EPA can withdraw mining permits

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Tags

coal, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Mining Permits, property rights

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA handed the Environmental Protection Agency a big win Tuesday, overturning a lower court decision in a ruling that said the agency has the power to retroactively veto coal mining pollution permits.

You can read more about this story here.

20130424-204925.jpg

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…

Posted by texascondemnation | Filed under Politics, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

EPA releases harsh review of Keystone XL environmental report

23 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by texascondemnation in Pipelines, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Condemnation, Eminent Domain, EPA, Keystone pipeline, Pipelines, property rights, TransCanada

The Keystone pipeline debate continues. In a letter to State Department officials, the EPA made objections regarding greenhouse gas emissions, pipeline safety and alternative routes. The EPA said it had “Environmental Objections” to the State Department’s environmental assessment due to “insufficient information. ”

Read the EPA’s letter here.

To read more about this article, click here.

20130422-202330.jpg

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

  • What Austin’s Light Rail Project Means for Property Owners August 7, 2026
    Austin’s Light Rail Project is moving from planning to property taking. The Austin Transit Partnership (ATP) has already begun taking …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • The Howard-Solstice Transmission Line: What You Should Know July 30, 2026
    A transmission line can cost you far more than the land covered by the easement. If your property is affected by …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Massive New Transmission Lines Are Headed Across Texas July 10, 2026
    Texas’ first 765-kilovolt transmission lines could permanently reshape the land they cross. If your property falls along the proposed Bell …Continue reading →
    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

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