Tag Archives: Texas Supreme Court

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

13 Friday Mar 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

The Texas Supreme Court reverses $5 million award to historical, family-owned beach in Galveston, Texas.

13 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Politics, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas eminent domain, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Although Porretto Beach survived the Great 1900 Storm, Hurricane Carla, Hurricane Camille, Hurricane Alicia, and Hurricane Ike, it was unable to endure the Texas Supreme Court’s recent hurricane-season battering.  The Court’s opinion shows just how hard it is for a landowner to win an “inverse condemnation case” in Texas.

There are two types of cases when the government takes property through eminent domain. First, there are physical takings cases like highway, power lines, and pipelines where landowners are absolutely entitled to just and adequate compensation under the Texas constitution.  Second, there are inverse cases, like Porretto, where the State does not physically occupy the property, but its actions have a real-world, negative impact on the ability to use the property.

In Porretto, the Texas Supreme Court goes to great length to avoid having the State “take” property.  The evidence showed that the State: (1) claimed ownership of the property through the General Land Office, (2) transferred ownership under the tax records to the State, and (3) leased a portion of the property to the City of Galveston.  If these steps do not constitute a “taking,” then a landowner is left with the question of what actually does.  The takeaway is that mere threats (and even some steps) are likely not going to be enough to establish an inverse condemnation taking in Texas.

In light of this ruling, Texas landowners must be very careful when negotiating and reaching agreements with the State.  Porretto is a perfect example of where the State may go back on its word!

You can read the full opinion here.

City of Austin may pay Whittington $14.1 million for downtown block

06 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Politics, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

After a grueling 14-year battle between Whittington and the State of Texas, the Texas Supreme Court deemed the 1999 condemnation of Whittington’s downtown block to, in fact, be lawful. A series of appeals from both parties prolonged this settlement, ending with the State paying a bargain price for the block that existed in Whittington’s family for a decade prior to condemnation. The $14.1 million is a steal for the State according to Whittington, who points out the court’s failure to take into consideration the amount of profit he could have made through his own development of the block. However, because the ultimate usage of the space by the State consisted of a parking garage and cooling facility for daily public use, the project was seen as maintaining the public good. The Court ruled that because the State did not resort to fraudulent or deceptive means to condemn the property, the process was fair and just. In the end, the State still has to pay an exorbitant $14.1 million for a single downtown block even though they won the case. Of course, to Whittington, the price is far below that true value of the land.

To read more about Whittington and the $14.1 million case, please click here.

$604, 950 Jury Award for Pipeline Damage Affirmed, Texas Supreme Court Denies Petition in San Antonio Court of Appeals

08 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

In some condemnation proceeding involving pipelines, three types of damages can potentially be taken into consideration: 1) the permanent damage caused by the presence of the pipeline; 2) the temporary damage caused by the laying out of the pipeline; and 3) the remaining lands’ diminution of value. In LaSalle Pipeline, LP v. Donnell Lands, LP, the landowner was initially offered a special commissioners’ award of $19,026 in compensation for the temporary workspace easements, $34,533 for the permanent easements, and $604,950 for the diminution of value to the remaining property. LaSalle Pipelines appealed, arguing for insufficient evidence as to the amounts awarded for the temporary easements and the remaining property.  Additionally, LaSalle argued that two of the jury members had a preexisting bias in favor of Donnell Lands. The Court of Appeals ruled the following: 1) the jury did not err in its $604,950 award for the diminution of value to the remaining property; 2) the expert appraisals’ methods were sound; 3) the trial court did err in its award for temporary workspace damages, reducing the award to $6,402; 4) LaSalle failed to establish venire members’ existing bias.

The implications of this case are quite large. With the growing number of condemnation cases in the Eagle Ford Shale area, pipeline companies are now obligated to provide compensation for the damage done to the remainder of the condemnee’s land. Not only does this alter the general predictability of eminent domain cases in Texas, it also implies gradual shifts towards increasing the value of the landowner’s voice.