Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 2004No. 02-0213Published

1Concurrence

*192■ Justice Jefferson,

concurring.

In each of these cases, the landowners have asserted that the condemnors failed to satisfy the unable-to-agree requirement prior to filing suit. I agree with them. I also agree with the Court that the requirement is not jurisdictional and that, when the condemnor has not shown an inability to agree, the case should be abated for a reasonable time until the condemnor makes an offer to purchase the property. Under the unique circumstances of these cases, however, abatement would serve no purpose. Accordingly, I join parts I through III of the Court’s opinion and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Hill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
  2. Burch v. City of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Texas Utilities Electric Co. v. TimmonsTexas Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Moore Landrey, L.L.P. v. Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2003
  5. Indiana Service Corp. v. Town of FloraIndiana Supreme Court · 1941

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API