Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Restricting Kelo: Will Redefining Blight In Senate Bill 7 Be The Light At The End Of The Tunnel., Adrianne Archer
Restricting Kelo: Will Redefining Blight In Senate Bill 7 Be The Light At The End Of The Tunnel., Adrianne Archer
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Kelo v. City of New London, the United States Supreme Court extended the public use limitation to its most expansive definition yet. The Kelo decision enhanced the Fifth Amendment takings power by allowing the city of New London, Connecticut, to exercise eminent domain power in furtherance of an economic development plan. Notably, the city’s revitalization plan did not include a claim that the area subject to eminent domain was “blighted.” The Fifth Amendment provides that governments may wield the power of eminent domain and take private property for public use but only with just compensation. Generally, private property can …
The Unable To Agree Requirement And Texas Condemnation Law: A Critical Analysis Of Hubenak V. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.., B. Tyler Milton
The Unable To Agree Requirement And Texas Condemnation Law: A Critical Analysis Of Hubenak V. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.., B. Tyler Milton
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Texas, the state constitution requires adequate compensation as a predicate to a taking of private property for a public use. Though an eminent domain cause of action has both a constitutional and statutory basis, the requirement of adequate or just compensation is premised on principles of natural equity and justice. Texas statutorily mandates that a condemner of land must, prior to the institution of a condemnation proceeding, plead and prove the two parties were “unable to agree” on the corresponding compensation due to the landowner. Texas courts interpreted this requirement in the condemnation statute to compel “good faith negotiations” …
Iolta In The Balance: The Battle Of Legality And Morality Between Robin Hood And The Miser Recent Development., Katherine L. Smith
Iolta In The Balance: The Battle Of Legality And Morality Between Robin Hood And The Miser Recent Development., Katherine L. Smith
St. Mary's Law Journal
Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) programs recently survived a constitutional challenge. IOLTA programs require interest earned from trust accounts deposited with client money to fund legal services for the poor. Many states, including Texas, maintain a mandatory IOLTA program, requiring all lawyers who handle client funds to participate. Proponents of IOLTA argue it benefits civil justice. Opponents argue it is an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held IOLTA accounts to be an unconstitutional taking of client property. The Ninth Circuit, however, found IOLTA accounts constitutional, holding that IOLTA accounts are not a taking …
The Role Of Variances In Determing Ripeness In Takings Claims Under Zoning Ordinances And Subdivision Regulations Of Texas Municipalities., John Mixon, Justin Waggoner
The Role Of Variances In Determing Ripeness In Takings Claims Under Zoning Ordinances And Subdivision Regulations Of Texas Municipalities., John Mixon, Justin Waggoner
St. Mary's Law Journal
Texas zoning law follows the national standards in creating boards of adjustment. Unlike most states, Texas does not allow its boards of adjustment to grant so-called “use” variances. A variance is essentially a legal waiver from compliance with certain land-use regulations which is granted to a landowner by a government entity in certain limited cases. There are two general types of variances: the area variance and the use variance. Use variance permits the property in question to be used in a manner totally different than that allowed by the ordinance. Whereas the area variance only modifies or relaxes the degree …
Texas Groundwater: Reconciling The Rule Of Capture With Environmental And Community Demands Comment., Stephanie E. Hayes Lusk
Texas Groundwater: Reconciling The Rule Of Capture With Environmental And Community Demands Comment., Stephanie E. Hayes Lusk
St. Mary's Law Journal
In order to avert the depletion of water resources, many states have attempted to enact legislation aimed at promoting water conservation. Such legislation has been known to conflict with outdated principles of property ownership, namely the rule of capture. The rule of capture vests landowners with property rights in water located directly beneath their land. Texas categorizes water based on whether the water flows above or below the surface. Surface water is typically the property of the state, with property owners having no possessory interest in the surface water. Yet, the opposite is true for groundwater, where all rights to …