Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-23-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 3:20-cv-223
Judge: Jeffrey V. Brown
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Esteban Soto, John Michael Zuercher, Laura Katharine Diller, Lisa Marie McClain Mitchell, Portia Lutz,
Description: Houston, Texas eminent domain lawyers represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendant on an inverse condemnation theory.
This case was filed in the 253rd Judicial District Court of Chambers County, 20-DCV-0300, and was removed to federal court by the State of Texas.
Property Owners filed suits in Texas state courts claiming that the flooding of their land by the State of Texas constituted a taking under the Takings Clause. The State removed the cases to federal court asserting
federal question jurisdiction. The State moved to dismiss the takings claims, arguing that the Fifth Amendment does not create an implied cause of action, the State is immune from monetary liability, and some claims were barred by
the limitations period. The district court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiffs-Property Owners could advance their claims directly under the Takings Clause. The panel disagreed. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause does not provide a right of action in federal court for takings claims against a state.1 The pathway for enforcement in takings by the state is rather through the state courts to the Supreme Court. On that passage, the Supreme Court of Texas applies both federal and state law.2 Its decisions on state law control, and Texas state law provides the procedures for fulfilling the State’s obligations under the Takings Clause for takings by the state.
* * *
From the beginning the Fifth Amendment charged the states to provide compensation for its takings to protect the peoples’ property. State courts were the enforcers of all claims against the state for all state takings in
all but one state. When § 1983 arrived, offered by an act of Congress under the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not provide a right of actions against states. This left in place the pathway to the Supreme Court of takings by the
states as distinguished from the pathways of cities and municipalities, a familiar review regime and an extraordinarily large structure nationwide that has operated for over a century. Yet despite any need, our dissenting colleagues seek to gratuitously puncture it. The en banc court refused to do so, and the peoples’ property remains fully protected from takings by the government.
Outcome: 03/24/2023 122 USCA Judgment: IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this Court (USCA No. 21-40750), filed.(EfrainGarcia, 1) (Entered: 03/24/2023)
03/24/2023 123 USCA Per Curiam: We VACATE the district court's decision and REMAND for further proceedings (USCA No. 21-40750), filed.(EfrainGarcia, 1) (Entered: 03/24/2023)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: