State v. Tamminga
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CUMMINGS, Justice.
This is a condemnation ease in which the State appeals the trial court’s order granting the landowner’s motion for severance. We affirm.
I. Procedural and Factual Background
In 1991, the State sought to condemn three separate parcels of property all owned by appellees, Kars and Grace Tamminga (hereafter the Tammingas), for the purpose of construction of the Superconducting Super Collider in Ellis County. The State originally brought three separate petitions for the condemnation of each of the three parcels, which we will refer to as Parcel A, Parcel B, and Parcel C.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- City of LaPorte v. BarfieldTexas Supreme Court · 1995
- GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEX. v. Oxy USA, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
- Webb v. JornsTexas Supreme Court · 1972
- Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Glyn-JonesTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Pierce v. ReynoldsTexas Supreme Court · 1959
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. Board of RegentsTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Malcomson Road Utility District v. Newsom, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2005
- Little-Tex Insulation Co. v. General Services Commission, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1999
- Smith v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1999
- Board of Regents of the University of Houston System v. FKM Partnership, Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2005
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.