State v. Ledrec, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Little Elm Plaza, Ltd.

    NO. 02-11-00037-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 25, 2012)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that inverse condemnation claims become “jurisdictionally ripe (as not having an injury that is too remote to be adjudicated) only after the government reaches a final decision about how a regulation applies to property and after a plaintiff has been denied a variance from the government”

    Earlier this year, we discussed and distinguished Coble in a case with variant facts. See State v. Ledrec, Inc., 366 S.W.3d 305, 311 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). Ledrec, Inc. (Ledrec) owned property in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Mansfield, and to widen a road, the State condemned part of the property.

  2. Crosstex DC Gathering Co. v. Button

    NO. 02-11-00067-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 24, 2013)

    SeeHeddin v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Co., 522 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Tex. 1975) (stating that fear of a proposed pipeline is relevant to a determination of damages in a condemnation suit when there is a basis in reason or experience for the fear; such fear enters into the calculation of persons who deal in the buying and selling of similar property; and there is depreciation of market value because of the existence of such fear); Stinson v. Arkla Energy Res., 823 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ) (same); see also Hunt, 149 Tex. at 41, 228 S.W.2d at 156 (noting that the supposition that market value might be adversely affected by the existence of the pipeline is not unreasonable). State v. Ledrec, Inc., 366 S.W.3d 305, 311 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). Although Crosstex points out the rule in condemnation valuation cases that "[e]vidence should be excluded relating to remote, speculative, and conjectural uses, as well as injuries, which are not reflected in the present market value of the property," that is only part of the rule.

  3. State v. Stockton Bend 100 Joint Venture

    NO. 02-14-00307-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 9, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Market value is "the price the property will bring when offered for sale by one who desires to sell, but is not obliged to sell, and is bought by one who desires to buy, but is under no necessity of buying." State v. Ledrec, Inc., 366 S.W.3d 305, 310 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (citing City of Harlingen v. Estate of Sharboneau, 48 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. 2001)). "'Whether property has been 'damaged' under the constitution is a question of law' subject to de novo review without deference to a lower court's conclusion."

  4. Loch 'N' Green Vill. Section Two Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Murtaugh

    NO. 02-12-00094-CV (Tex. App. May. 30, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Stating that, coupled with judicial admissions, the evidence "establishe[d] appellant's long-term acquiescence in violations" of the relevant restrictions in the parties' agreement, supporting summary judgment for appellees based on waiver

    Appellant contends that the summary judgment evidence shows that appellees had constructive notice of the covenants creating the Homeowners Association, fails to conclusively establish appellees' affirmative defenses, and fails to establish that the covenants cannot be enforced against appellees. In a summary judgment case, the issue on appeal is whether the movant met the summary judgment burden by establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); State v. Ledrec, Inc., 366 S.W.3d 305, 307-08 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). We review a summary judgment de novo.