CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. 11.355 Acres of Land

The United States initiated condemnation proceedings on September 8, 1943, to acquire 11.355 acres in Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, for national defense housing under various war powers acts and executive orders. Landowners L. J. Goodson, J. W. Singleton, and C. W. B. Long challenged the taking, arguing a lack of housing shortage, non-public use, and violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming the land was for private benefit and not essential for the war effort. Judge Atwell determined that providing housing for war plant workers constituted a legitimate 'public use' vital for war prosecution, dismissing arguments about alternative lands or private benefit. The court affirmed the government's right to condemn the property, with just compensation to be determined later. Consequently, the motion to set aside the taking and for restraint was refused.

CondemnationEminent DomainPublic UseWar Powers ActNational DefenseHousing ShortageFifth AmendmentDue ProcessProperty RightsDallas County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Cooperative Educational Services v. Town of Colonie

The petitioner, an educational facility in Albany County, challenged the respondent's determination to condemn its exclusive access road for public highway use. The court reviewed the respondent's actions under EDPL 207, specifically focusing on compliance with SEQRA. The court found that the respondent failed to adequately address the petitioner's environmental concerns regarding increased traffic and student safety, thus not fulfilling the "hard look" requirement for a negative environmental declaration. Consequently, the respondent's determination was annulled. However, the court did affirm that the condemnation served a legitimate public purpose related to traffic safety and that the prior public use doctrine did not bar the taking.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEnvironmental ReviewSEQRAPublic PurposePrior Public Use DoctrineTraffic SafetyAccess RoadEasementJudicial Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Midlothian v. Black

Letha Black's property experienced increased water flow and damage after the City of Midlothian approved a residential subdivision's drainage detention pond. Black sued Midlothian, alleging a violation of the Texas Water Code and an inverse condemnation claim. Midlothian filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. The appellate court held that the Legislature had not clearly and unambiguously waived Midlothian's immunity for the Water Code claim. Furthermore, the court found Black failed to sufficiently plead a valid inverse condemnation claim by not alleging that Midlothian knew the damage was substantially certain to occur. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's denial of Midlothian's plea to the jurisdiction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Black's suit against Midlothian.

Governmental ImmunityInverse CondemnationWater Code ViolationPlea to the JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunitySurface Water DiversionProperty DamageTexas Constitution Article I Section 17Municipal ImmunityStatutory Interpretation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hubbard v. Town of Sand Lake

This proceeding was initiated by the petitioner under EDPL 207 to review the respondent's determination to condemn a portion of the petitioner’s land for a landfill. The respondent had sought to acquire a long-term interest in the property to ensure compliance with a State Department of Environmental Conservation order for landfill closure, monitoring, and maintenance. The court annulled the respondent's determination, finding that it failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not taking a 'hard look' at environmental concerns and providing a 'reasoned elaboration' for its negative determination. The court rejected the argument that SEQRA review was unnecessary for a land taking.

Eminent DomainLand CondemnationEnvironmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationLandfill ClosurePublic InterestJudicial ReviewAnnulmentRensselaer County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motiva Enterprises, LLC v. McCrabb

Motiva Enterprises, LLC (Motiva) appealed a trial court's summary judgment in a condemnation proceeding that awarded the McCrabbs $304,000 for condemned land. Motiva argued it had a right to recover for its 'lost leasehold' interest after a portion of its leased property was condemned for the Katy Freeway expansion. The lease agreement, entered into in 1971 by Motiva through Shell Oil Company, stipulated that the lease would terminate upon condemnation but allowed Motiva to recover for specific items like improvements and 'special damages'. The trial court denied Motiva's claim for leasehold advantage, stating the lease's automatic termination upon condemnation precluded such compensation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that under Texas law, when a lease explicitly terminates upon condemnation, the lessee has no compensable interest in the lost leasehold, despite a general 'special damages' clause.

CondemnationEminent DomainLeasehold InterestSummary JudgmentContract LawTexas LawProperty RightsAppellate DecisionLease TerminationSpecial Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. 01-06-00701-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2007

Motiva Enterprises, LLC v. Audeen McCrabb, Norma Ann Euton, Connie Mendez, Tom Mendez, Kirk McCrabb, Kathy McCrabb, Scott McCrabb, Sarah McCrabb, Joseph McCrabb and Rebecca McCrabb

In this appeal from the First District of Texas, Motiva Enterprises, LLC challenged a trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of the McCrabbs in a condemnation proceeding. Motiva contended it had a right to recover for its "lost leasehold" interest after a portion of the leased property was condemned, leading to the lease's termination. The Court of Appeals reviewed the interpretation of a long-term ground lease, specifically Article 14, which stipulated the lease's termination upon condemnation and the tenant's entitlement to "special damages." The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that because the lease explicitly terminated upon condemnation, Motiva, as a matter of law, was not entitled to compensation for its lost leasehold advantage.

CondemnationLeasehold InterestSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationSpecial DamagesProperty LawEminent DomainTexas LawAppellate ReviewLease Termination
References
16
Case No. 14-01-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2002

Taub, Henry J.N. v. Aquila Southwest Pipeline Corporation

This case concerns the exclusive jurisdiction of county civil courts at law in Harris County over eminent domain proceedings. Appellant Henry J.N. Taub challenged a final judgment in a consolidated condemnation and trespass case involving Aquila Southwest Pipeline Corporation. The appellate court found that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Aquila's condemnation action. Consequently, it vacated the portion of the judgment granting Aquila an easement and awarding Taub condemnation damages. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on Taub’s trespass claims and remanded the condemnation action for transfer to the appropriate County Civil Court at Law.

Eminent DomainJurisdictionTrespassExclusive JurisdictionConcurrent JurisdictionAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentCondemnation DamagesTexas Government Code
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Elkins Lake Municipal Utility District

The State Department of Highways and Public Transportation appealed an order granting a mandatory temporary injunction that directed them to file condemnation proceedings. Appellees, Elkins Lake Municipal Utility District and Elkins Lake Recreation Corporation, alleged property damage from construction runoff constituted a taking without compensation and sought to compel condemnation. The appellate court found that Texas law (article 3269) does not authorize courts to compel state agencies to initiate condemnation actions. Furthermore, the injunction was deemed improper because it changed the status quo, granted the appellees all the relief sought prematurely, and an adequate remedy at law existed through an inverse condemnation claim for monetary damages. Consequently, the temporary injunction was dissolved, and the cause was reversed and remanded to the trial court.

CondemnationTemporary InjunctionInverse CondemnationProperty RightsGovernment LiabilityAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil StatutesDue ProcessEminent DomainSovereign Immunity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodfield Equities, LLC v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

Woodfield Equities, LLC, purchased two parcels in the Village of Patchogue to house recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. The Village's Board of Trustees resolved to condemn these parcels for park expansion and relocation of government/community groups. Woodfield challenged the condemnation, alleging misuse of eminent domain (EDPL), environmental law (SEQRA), and constitutional violations, claiming it was a pretext for discrimination. The court found the Board established a legitimate public purpose for the acquisition and dismissed allegations of bad faith. The court also deemed the Board's negative declaration under SEQRA appropriate. The determination to condemn was confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Eminent DomainPublic PurposeCondemnationProperty RightsSEQRADiscrimination AllegationsVillage of PatchogueReal PropertyJudicial ReviewLand Use
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 72 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational