Legal Opinion
State v. Target Corp.
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
Decided June 6, 2006No. 10-04-00326-CVPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BILL VANCE, Justice.
In its appeal of an adverse judgment in a condemnation case, the State asserts that the trial court erred in excluding the State’s expert testimony on Target’s damages and the total compensation owed to Target. We agree and will reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
The State condemned 0.184 of an acre (8,018 sq. ft.) of a 9.0232 acre tract owned by Target in the city of College Station. The tract is improved with a Target retail store. The acquisition was a fifteen-foot wide strip of land being used by Target for landscaping and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. PowellTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- Wheeler v. GreenTexas Supreme Court · 2005
- Exxon Pipeline Co. v. ZwahrTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- McCraw v. MarisTexas Supreme Court · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Allan v. Nersesova, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2010
- Dallas County v. Crestview Corners Car WashCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2012
- In Re Kings Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2010
- Mid Continent Lift & Equipment, LLC v. J. McNeill Pilot Car ServiceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017
- Grocers Supply, Inc. and Jose Narciso Sanchez v. Jose Luis Cabello, Angel Cabello, and Ramiro Cabello, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.