Legal Opinion

State v. Biggar

Texas Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1994No. D-3755PublishedCited by 89 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGammage, Justice

In this inverse condemnation suit, the issue is whether the State must compensate a landowner for damages caused when the State, acting to reduce the price of a later eminent domain acquisition, denies the landowner’s request for an easement exchange. We hold that, under the facts of the case before us, the State’s actions resulted in damages compensable under Article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution. For this reason, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 848 S.W.2d 291.

John H. Biggar, Terrence Kendall, David Helfert, and Edmund J. Fleming, Jr. (collectively, “Landowners”)…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Steele v. City of HoustonTexas Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Davis v. City of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. HaleTexas Supreme Court · 1941
  5. McClure v. Allied Stores of Texas, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by89 opinions

  1. City of Keller v. WilsonTexas Supreme Court · 2005
  2. General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Brown v. Bank of Galveston, National Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 2012

84 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