Legal Opinion

City of Laredo v. Montano

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 2013No. 12-0274PublishedCited by 121 opinions

1Per curiam

In this eminent-domain case, a jury determined that the City of Laredo’s condemnation was not for an authorized public use and awarded attorney’s fees and expenses to the property owner under Texas *733Property Code § 21.019(c). This fee-shifting statute authorizes the trial court to “make an allowance to the property owner for reasonable and necessary fees” and expenses to the judgment date, when condemnation is denied. The City appealed the award, complaining about deficiencies in the property owner’s attorney’s fees proof under the fee-shifting statute. The court of appeals reformed the award…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1997
  3. El Apple I, Ltd. v. OlivasTexas Supreme Court · 2012
  4. FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. Board of RegentsTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  5. City of Laredo v. MontanoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2012

3Cited by121 opinions

  1. Rohrmoos Venture, Eric Langford, Dan Basso, and Tobin Grove v. Utsw DVA Healthcare, LlpTexas Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Long v. GriffinTexas Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem AbrahamTexas Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Schimmel v. McGregorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
  5. McCaig Ex Rel. Estate of McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2015

116 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