Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bunch v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2010As the Supreme Court stated in Kraft, “a landowner rule [can]not burden adjacent lands with surface water he accumulate[s] or discharge[s] except in the same manner in which it would naturally flow.” Kraft, 565 S.W.2d at 228 ; see also Bunch v. Thomas, 121 Tex. 225 , 49 S.W.2d 421, 423 (1932) (“a landowner cannot collect surface water into an artificial shannel [sic] or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter”).5 Focusing in particular on the lower landowner (here, Vien), Texas courts have characterized t 2010As the Supreme Court stated in Kraft, “a landowner rule [can]not burden adjacent lands with surface water he accumulate[s] or discharge[s] except in the same manner in which it would naturally flow.” Kraft, 565 S.W.2d at 228 ; see also Bunch v. Thomas, 121 Tex. 225 , 49 S.W.2d 421, 423 (1932) (“a landowner cannot collect surface water into an artificial shannel [sic] or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter”).5 Focusing in particular on the lower landowner (here, Vien), Texas courts have characterized t | 2 | 2 |
Stukes v. Bachmeyergreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Stukes v. Bachmeyer, 249 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.); Cain v. Rust Indus. 2010See, e.g., Stukes v. Bachmeyer, 249 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.); Cain v. Rust Indus. | 2 | 2 |
Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. and Mike Latta v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, Llcgreen2 sentences2022In Denbury, the supreme court was asked to decide whether a landowner could challenge in court the eminent-domain power of a pipeline owner, i.e., whether the Pipeline was a common carrier. 363 S.W.3d at 195 . 2016Id, The court held in Denbury that “[t]o qualify as" a common carrier with the power of eminent domain, [a] pipeline must serve the public; it cannot be built only for the builder’s exclusive use.” 363 S.W.3d at 200 (emphasis added). | 1 | 4 |
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Ramseygreen2 sentences2015Id. 1992Id. at 472 . | 1 | 3 |
Hallco Texas, Inc. v. McMullen Countygreen1 sentence2019Thus, financial 3 See Hallco Tex. Inc. v. McMullen Cty., 221 S.W.3d 50, 60 (Tex. 2006) (plurality op.). 9 considerations of the landowner are factors that the City may consider. | 1 | 1 |
Burkett v. Welborngreen1 sentence2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
Maxey v. Texas Commerce Bank of Lubbockgreen2 sentences2009See Maxey v. Tex. Commerce Bank of Lubbock, 571 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillol978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (involving qualified expert testifying about property value.); State v. Tellepsen Const. Co., 459 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, no writ) (same); Tex. Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger, 441 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding principal shareholder of corporation, who negotiated leases of corporation for eleven years, may testify regarding value of leasehold in connection with apportionment of condemnation award between lessor and lessee, but 2009See Maxey v. Tex. Commerce Bank of Lubbock, 571 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (involving qualified expert testifying about property value.); State v. Tellepsen Const. Co., 459 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, no writ) (same); Tex. Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger, 441 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding principal shareholder of corporation, who negotiated leases of corporation for eleven years, may testify regarding value of leasehold in connection with apportionment of condemnation award between lessor and lessee, but | 1 | 1 |
City of Richardson v. Smithgreen1 sentence1976City of Richardson v. Smith, 494 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1973, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Southern Pipeline Corporation v. Deitch, 451 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi 1970, error granted); Calvert v. City of Denton, 375 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
Minyard v. Texas Power & Light Companygreen1 sentence1976Minyard v. Texas Power & Light Co., 271 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1954, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.
green
2 sentences2015Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) concerned with bodily harm. 2001Because both parties elected to file motions for summary judgment instead of requesting a full evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional question, we must review the trial court’s summary judgment order under the well-established standard of review for summary judgments set forth in Randall’s Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.1995); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Company, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.1985); and Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation, 450 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.1970). *136 In support of its motion for summary judgment and to meet the requirement of Section 21.012, San Jac | 2 | 2001–2015 |
Kraft v. Langford
green
2 sentences2010As the Supreme Court stated in Kraft, “a landowner rule [can]not burden adjacent lands with surface water he accumulate[s] or discharge[s] except in the same manner in which it would naturally flow.” Kraft, 565 S.W.2d at 228 ; see also Bunch v. Thomas, 121 Tex. 225 , 49 S.W.2d 421, 423 (1932) (“a landowner cannot collect surface water into an artificial shannel [sic] or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter”).5 Focusing in particular on the lower landowner (here, Vien), Texas courts have characterized t 2010As the Supreme Court stated in Kraft, “a landowner rule [can]not burden adjacent lands with surface water he accumulate[s] or discharge[s] except in the same manner in which it would naturally flow.” Kraft, 565 S.W.2d at 228 ; see also Bunch v. Thomas, 121 Tex. 225 , 49 S.W.2d 421, 423 (1932) (“a landowner cannot collect surface water into an artificial shannel [sic] or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter”).5 Focusing in particular on the lower landowner (here, Vien), Texas courts have characterized t | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Morgan v. Oliver
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Sunchase Capital Group, Inc. v. City of Crandall
green
1 sentence2015Because Bizios’ property was platted several years ago and Lakewood Village is not applying its building code as part of the subdivision approval process, Bizios does not conflict with Milestone. • Standing of a landowner to challenge an annexation ordinance was at issue in Sunchase Capital Group, Inc. v. City of Crandall, 69 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Tellepsen Construction Co.
neutral
2 sentences2009See Maxey v. Tex. Commerce Bank of Lubbock, 571 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillol978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (involving qualified expert testifying about property value.); State v. Tellepsen Const. Co., 459 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, no writ) (same); Tex. Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger, 441 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding principal shareholder of corporation, who negotiated leases of corporation for eleven years, may testify regarding value of leasehold in connection with apportionment of condemnation award between lessor and lessee, but 2009See Maxey v. Tex. Commerce Bank of Lubbock, 571 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (involving qualified expert testifying about property value.); State v. Tellepsen Const. Co., 459 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, no writ) (same); Tex. Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger, 441 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding principal shareholder of corporation, who negotiated leases of corporation for eleven years, may testify regarding value of leasehold in connection with apportionment of condemnation award between lessor and lessee, but | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger
green
2 sentences2009See Maxey v. Tex. Commerce Bank of Lubbock, 571 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillol978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (involving qualified expert testifying about property value.); State v. Tellepsen Const. Co., 459 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, no writ) (same); Tex. Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger, 441 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding principal shareholder of corporation, who negotiated leases of corporation for eleven years, may testify regarding value of leasehold in connection with apportionment of condemnation award between lessor and lessee, but 2009See Maxey v. Tex. Commerce Bank of Lubbock, 571 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (involving qualified expert testifying about property value.); State v. Tellepsen Const. Co., 459 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, no writ) (same); Tex. Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger, 441 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding principal shareholder of corporation, who negotiated leases of corporation for eleven years, may testify regarding value of leasehold in connection with apportionment of condemnation award between lessor and lessee, but | 1 | 2009–2009 |
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION v. City of Wichita Falls
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2001Because both parties elected to file motions for summary judgment instead of requesting a full evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional question, we must review the trial court’s summary judgment order under the well-established standard of review for summary judgments set forth in Randall’s Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.1995); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Company, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.1985); and Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation, 450 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.1970). *136 In support of its motion for summary judgment and to meet the requirement of Section 21.012, San Jac | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation
green
1 sentence2001Because both parties elected to file motions for summary judgment instead of requesting a full evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional question, we must review the trial court’s summary judgment order under the well-established standard of review for summary judgments set forth in Randall’s Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.1995); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Company, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.1985); and Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation, 450 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.1970). *136 In support of its motion for summary judgment and to meet the requirement of Section 21.012, San Jac | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Calvert v. City of Denton
green
1 sentence1976City of Richardson v. Smith, 494 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1973, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Southern Pipeline Corporation v. Deitch, 451 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi 1970, error granted); Calvert v. City of Denton, 375 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Southern Pipe Line Corporation v. Deitch
green
1 sentence1976City of Richardson v. Smith, 494 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1973, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Southern Pipeline Corporation v. Deitch, 451 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi 1970, error granted); Calvert v. City of Denton, 375 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation District v. Allen
green
2 sentences1959This is the prejudice to the landowner which the rule of Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation Distict v. Allen, 141 Texas 208 , 171 S.W. 2d 842 , is based. 1959This is the prejudice to the landowner which the rule of Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation Distict v. Allen, 141 Texas 208 , 171 S.W. 2d 842 , is based. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.