Logan test in Texas

2020Id. at 496 (citing Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605 , 607–08 (Tex. 1985)).

2020Id. at 496 (citing Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605 , 607–08 (Tex. 1985)).

2015The billboards in this case could not have been removed for use elsewhere any more than the elevator and other buildings in Almota. 14 409 U.S. 470 (1973). 15 Id. at 470–471. 16 Id. at 471–472. 17 Id. at 472 . 18 Id. at 477 n.5 (citing 4 P. Nichols, E M IN EN T D O M AIN § 13.121(2) (3d rev. ed. 1971)). 8 When an improvement to land, whether a building or a sign, cannot be removed except in useless pieces, it is almost certainly a fixture under Logan’s first factor, even if the tenant has a legal right to the pieces.

2015The billboards in this case could not have been removed for use elsewhere any more than the elevator and other buildings in Almota. 14 409 U.S. 470 (1973). 15 Id. at 470–471. 16 Id. at 471–472. 17 Id. at 472 . 18 Id. at 477 n.5 (citing 4 P. Nichols, E M IN EN T D O M AIN § 13.121(2) (3d rev. ed. 1971)). 8 When an improvement to land, whether a building or a sign, cannot be removed except in useless pieces, it is almost certainly a fixture under Logan’s first factor, even if the tenant has a legal right to the pieces.

2025We agree. “[A]ll errors—even constitutional errors—may be forfeited on appeal if an appellant failed to object at trial.” Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim.

2018See Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d). 1 We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

2014“There are but two jurisdictional requirements under section *427 554.0035.” State of Tex. v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 881 (Tex.2009).

2013City of Argyle v. Pierce, 258 S.W.3d 674, 683 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. dism’d).

2013City of Argyle v. Pierce, 258 S.W.3d 674, 683 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. dism’d).

2013See Logan, 686 S.W.2d at 608 (holding that the culvert was permanently attached to the realty as a matter of law where evidence showed that the culvert was embedded under gravel road in various materials, including gravel and dirt, and it was difficult to remove once embedded); Harris County Flood Control District v. Roberts, 252 S.W.3d 667, 672-73 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.)(evidence supported trial court’s determination that a billboard structure was a fixture); see also Clear Channel, 274 S.W.3d at 165-66 (holding that Clear Channel created a fact issue sufficient to defea

2013See Logan, 686 S.W.2d at 608 (holding that the culvert was permanently attached to the realty as a matter of law where evidence showed that the culvert was embedded under gravel road in various materials, including gravel and dirt, and it was difficult to remove once embedded); Harris County Flood Control District v. Roberts, 252 S.W.3d 667, 672-73 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.)(evidence supported trial court’s determination that a billboard structure was a fixture); see also Clear Channel, 274 S.W.3d at 165-66 (holding that Clear Channel created a fact issue sufficient to defea

2013Arlington responds that the Logan test is inapplicable to a condemnation proceeding and it cites State v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 162, 165 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) in support.

2013Arlington responds that the Logan test is inapplicable to a condemnation proceeding and it cites State v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 162, 165 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) in support.

2013Clear Channel Outdoor, 274 S.W.3d at 165 ; see State v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., No. 01-11-00197-CV, 2012 WL 4465338, at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 27, 2012, pet. filed) (memo, op.) (in subsequent appeal, refusing to reconsider its prior ruling regarding inapplicability of Logan).

2013Clear Channel Outdoor, 274 S.W.3d at 165 ; see State v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., No. 01-11-00197-CV, 2012 WL 4465338, at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 27, 2012, pet. filed) (memo, op.) (in subsequent appeal, refusing to reconsider its prior ruling regarding inapplicability of Logan).

2008See Almota, 409 U.S. 470 ,478 n. 5, 93 S.Ct. at 797 n. 5, 35 L.Ed.2d 1 (condemning authority cannot take advantage of agreement between lessor and lessee designating improvement by lessee as personal property); accord Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation Dist. v. Adkisson, 173 S.W.2d 294, 300 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1943, writ refd).

2008See Almota, 409 U.S. 470 ,478 n. 5, 93 S.Ct. at 797 n. 5, 35 L.Ed.2d 1 (condemning authority cannot take advantage of agreement between lessor and lessee designating improvement by lessee as personal property); accord Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation Dist. v. Adkisson, 173 S.W.2d 294, 300 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1943, writ refd).