City of San Antonio v. Ruble
Texas Supreme Court
1DissentSteakley, Justice
I dissent in the view that the agreements in question authorize nothing more than a license to do certain things for certain purposes on the lands in question, and did not convey an easement interest in realty as presupposed in the majority opinion; that *284disuser occurred when the City took the permissive rights for a predetermined destructive use, whereupon the rights lapsed; and that the landowners are entitled to recover the full value of their lands in the pending condemnation proceeding.
The problem is novel and inheres in long prior contracts by which Respondents or their predecessors in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1925
- T. & P. R'y Co. v. DurrettTexas Supreme Court · 1882
- Pierce v. Cleland, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1890
- Evans v. RopteTexas Supreme Court · 1936
- City of San Antonio v. Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate WordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.