Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement District Number One v. Fullwood
Texas Supreme Court
1DissentHecht, Justice
The Court’s denial of the application for writ of error in this case means that taxpayers in Fort Worth and nearby cities must pay over $2,000,000 for their water that they do not owe. The public interest involved in this ease deserves full review. I respectfully dissent from the denial of application for writ of error.
The principal issue raised here is whether the Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District Number One is liable for inverse condemnation of a mineral interest. The circumstances are these.
To construct the Richland-Chambers Reservoir, which now provides fresh water for…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. SterlingTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Hudson v. WakefieldTexas Supreme Court · 1986
- Steele v. City of HoustonTexas Supreme Court · 1980
- Amoco Production Co. v. AlexanderTexas Supreme Court · 1981
- DuPuy v. City of WacoTexas Supreme Court · 1965
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- in the Interest of L.M.I. and J.A.I., Minor ChildrenTexas Supreme Court · 2003
- Maguire Oil Co. v. City of Houston, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2002
- Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. v. City of Edinburg, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2000
- Cressman Tubular Products Corp. v. Kurt Wiseman Oil & Gas, Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2010
- Stewart v. Littlefield, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.