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.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahrgreen2 sentences2022Tex.) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, LLC, 386 S.W.3d 46 256, 262 (Tex. 2012). 47 Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Tex. 2002). 20 ‘the question is, what has the owner lost, not what has the taker gained.’”48 A factfinder should consider the highest and best use of the land in determining the market value of the property taken.49 The existing use of the land is presumed to be its highest and best use, “but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near 2013And we point out that in nuisance cases, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that ―estimates of market value normally rest on expectations not about future days but about future years.‖57 54 Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628 (―The existing use of the land, in this case, cotton farming, is its presumed highest and best use, but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near future for another use.‖). 55 Cannizzo, 267 S.W.2d at 814 (stating that uses may be considered eve | 2 | 4 |
McAshan v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp.green2 sentences2019See McAshan v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp., 739 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, no writ). 2002See United States v. 8.41 Acres of Land, 680 F.2d 388, 394 (5th Cir.1982); McAshan v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp., 739 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. 8.41 Acres of Landgreen2 sentences2015However, the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing “a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near future for another use.” Id.; see also United States v. 841 Acres of Land, 680 F.2d 388 , 394-95 (5th Cir.1982). *858 An economic-unit is that portion of the property that is sufficient standing alone to support the highest and best use, independent of the remaining portions of the whole property. 2002See United States v. 8.41 Acres of Land, 680 F.2d 388, 394 (5th Cir.1982); McAshan v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp., 739 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
City of Austin v. Cannizzogreen2 sentences2013And we point out that in nuisance cases, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that ―estimates of market value normally rest on expectations not about future days but about future years.‖57 54 Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628 (―The existing use of the land, in this case, cotton farming, is its presumed highest and best use, but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near future for another use.‖). 55 Cannizzo, 267 S.W.2d at 814 (stating that uses may be considered eve 2013And we point out that in nuisance cases, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that ―estimates of market value normally rest on expectations not about future days but about future years.‖57 54 Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628 (―The existing use of the land, in this case, cotton farming, is its presumed highest and best use, but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near future for another use.‖). 55 Cannizzo, 267 S.W.2d at 814 (stating that uses may be considered eve | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. M.S. Development Co.green2 sentences2022Tex.) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, LLC, 386 S.W.3d 46 256, 262 (Tex. 2012). 47 Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Tex. 2002). 20 ‘the question is, what has the owner lost, not what has the taker gained.’”48 A factfinder should consider the highest and best use of the land in determining the market value of the property taken.49 The existing use of the land is presumed to be its highest and best use, “but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near 2022Tex.) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, LLC, 386 S.W.3d 46 256, 262 (Tex. 2012). 47 Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Tex. 2002). 20 ‘the question is, what has the owner lost, not what has the taker gained.’”48 A factfinder should consider the highest and best use of the land in determining the market value of the property taken.49 The existing use of the land is presumed to be its highest and best use, “but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near | 1 | 1 |
Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of Bostongreen2 sentences2022Chamber of Com. 48 v. City of Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 195 (1910)). 49 Id. at 261 . 50 Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628 . 51 Nat. 2022Chamber of Com. 48 v. City of Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 195 (1910)). 49 Id. at 261 . 50 Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628 . 51 Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Batesgreen1 sentence2013And we point out that in nuisance cases, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that ―estimates of market value normally rest on expectations not about future days but about future years.‖57 54 Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628 (―The existing use of the land, in this case, cotton farming, is its presumed highest and best use, but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near future for another use.‖). 55 Cannizzo, 267 S.W.2d at 814 (stating that uses may be considered eve | 1 | 1 |
Davenport v. Garciagreen1 sentence2013And we point out that in nuisance cases, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that ―estimates of market value normally rest on expectations not about future days but about future years.‖57 54 Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628 (―The existing use of the land, in this case, cotton farming, is its presumed highest and best use, but the landowner can rebut this presumption by showing a reasonable probability that when the taking occurred, the property was adaptable and needed or would likely be needed in the near future for another use.‖). 55 Cannizzo, 267 S.W.2d at 814 (stating that uses may be considered eve | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.