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.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aronoff v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2009State v. Ware , 86 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); Aronoff v. City of Dallas , 316 S.W.2d 302 , 307-08 (Tex. Civ . 2009State v. Ware, 86 S.W.3d 817, 822 (TexApp.-Austin 2002, no pet.); Aronoff v. City of Dallas, 316 S.W.2d 302, 307-08 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1958,' writ refd n.r.e.). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Central Expressway Sign Associatesgreen2 sentences2020“The undivided-fee rule states that when real property has been carved into different interests, the property is valued for condemnation purposes as if it were owned by a single party.” State v. Central Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866, 873 (Tex. 2009). 2015Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866, 873 (Tex.2009) ("The undivided-fee rule states that when real property has been carved into different interests, the property is valued for condemnation purposes as if it were owned by a single party. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Waregreen2 sentences2009State v. Ware , 86 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); Aronoff v. City of Dallas , 316 S.W.2d 302 , 307-08 (Tex. Civ . 2009State v. Ware, 86 S.W.3d 817, 822 (TexApp.-Austin 2002, no pet.); Aronoff v. City of Dallas, 316 S.W.2d 302, 307-08 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1958,' writ refd n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Urban Renewal Agency v. Trammelgreen2 sentences2002The court of appeals, in dicta, recited the undivided-fee rule and noted that it applied “to a lease or other legal interest, such as an easement.” Id. (citing Trammel, 407 S.W.2d at 774 ). 2002The court of appeals, in dicta , recited the undivided-fee rule and noted that it applied "to a lease or other legal interest, such as an easement." Id. (citing Trammel , 407 S.W.2d at 774 ). | 1 | 4 |
Federal Oil Co. v. City of Culver Citygreen2 sentences2002Therefore, the issue is solely as to the market value of Federal [OilJ’s rights in the surface of the subject land.” Id. at 522; see also 4 Nichols at § 12.05[2] (“An[ ] exception to the undivided fee rule arises where the condemnor already owns all the interests in the land except that of the condemnee.”). 2002Therefore, the issue is solely as to the market value of Federal [Oil]'s rights in the surface of the subject land. " Id. at 522 ; see also 4 Nichols at § 12.05[2] ("An[] exception to the undivided fee rule arises where the condemnor already owns all the interests in the land except that of the condemnee."). | 1 | 3 |
Reeves v. City of Dallasgreen1 sentence1995Reeves v. City of Dallas , 195 S.W.2d 575, 581-82 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zinsmeyer v. State
green
2 sentences2002The court of appeals, in dicta, recited the undivided-fee rule and noted that it applied “to a lease or other legal interest, such as an easement.” Id. (citing Trammel, 407 S.W.2d at 774 ). 2002The Wares assert that the undivided-fee rule “has also been consistently applied in cases involving easements and other undivided ownerships.” However, they direct this Court to but one authority to support their assertion, Zinsmeyer v. State, 646 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1983, no writ). | 3 | 2002–2002 |
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.