Tex. Codes » Property Code · TITLE 4. ACTIONS AND REMEDIES · CHAPTER 21. EMINENT DOMAIN
Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 21.001 (2026)

Concurrent Jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 21.001. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. District courts and county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction in eminent domain cases. A county court has no jurisdiction in eminent domain cases.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3498, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Doan v. Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, 542 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doan v. Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, 542 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “1032(c) (imposing a monetary limit on the condemnation claims over which Harris County civil courts at law exercise exclusive jurisdiction) with TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 21.001 (West 2014) (the general statute under which district courts and county courts at law have concurrent…”
State v. PR Investments & Specialty Retailers, Inc., 180 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 21.001, et seq. In construing this statute, we must keep in mind that the procedures for condemnation should be strictly followed and their protections liberally construed for the benefit of landowners.”
City of Austin v. Harry M. Whittington, 384 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. 2012). “Tex. Prop.Code §§ 21.001, 21.012, 21.013; Hubenak, 141 S.”
City of Seabrook v. Port of Houston Auth., 199 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “2005); TEX. PROP.CODE ANN. § 21.001 (Vernon 2004).”
In Re Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 12 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Instead, the question is whether the trial court’s jurisdiction over the eminent domain proceedings also gave it jurisdiction to issue the injunction order.”
Blasingame v. Krueger, 800 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Tex.Prop. Code Ann. § 21.001; 21.012; 21.”
Schumann v. City of Schertz, 100 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “001 is entitled “Concurrent Jurisdiction” and states, “District courts and county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction in eminent domain cases,” Tex. PROp.”
Amason v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co., 682 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1984). “When a party desires to condemn land for public use but cannot agree on settlement terms with the landowner, that party must file a statement seeking condemnation in the proper court, either district court or county court at law, of the county in which the land is located.”
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 65 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App. 2002). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. §§ 21.001, .012, .013 (Vernon 1984 & Supp.”
Lighthouse Church of Cloverleaf v. Texas Bank, 889 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. App. 1994). “(Vernon 1984); Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 21.001 et seq. (Vernon 1984).”
State v. Landry, 793 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 21.001 (Vernon 1984) provides that district courts and county counts at law have concurrent jurisdiction in eminent domain cases.”
Medina v. Benkiser, 262 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. App. 2008). “Compare Tex. PROp.Code ann. § 21.001 (Vernon 2004) (establishing jurisdiction over particular matter in county court at law by providing, “District courts and county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction in eminent domain cases.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.