Caffe Ribs, Inc. v. State
328 S.W.3d 919
Tex. App.2010Background
- Texas condemned a 7.5214-acre parcel for highway purposes, with Weatherford contamination history on the site.
- Caffe Ribs purchased the property in 1995 subject to an AS-IS/WHERE-IS conveyance and contamination caveat.
- Environmental remediation agreements tied Weatherford to pay certain remediation costs and indemnify future owners.
- Special Commissioners awarded $7,372,000; later the award was withdrawn and partial funds permitted for withdrawal by Caffe Ribs and Paul Revere.
- At trial, the court excluded evidence tying Weatherford to remediation costs and third-party payment, while contamination evidence was admitted.
- Jury valued the property at $4.5 million; judgment required Caffe Ribs to pay the State $2,872,000 based on withdrawal and taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was exclusion of Weatherford indemnity evidence harmful? | Weatherford indemnity evidence relevant to stigma and value. | Evidence irrelevant to market value; focus was on remediation timing, not liability. | Abuse of discretion; exclusion harmful; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Harlingen v. Sharboneau, 48 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2001) (market value reflects all factors buyers/sellers consider)
- Primrose Operating Co. v. Senn, 161 S.W.3d 258 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005) (stigma and contamination impact on value)
- Interstate Northborough P'ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001) (review of evidentiary harm standards in condemnation)
- Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Primrose Operating Co. v. Senn, 161 S.W.3d 258 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005) (quoted twice; stigma concept in value calculations)
- State v. Central Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) (central issue of evidence affecting central questions in case)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2000) (standard for reviewing damages evidence in public taking cases)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (admissibility/outcome considerations in evidentiary rulings)
- Durbin v. Dal-Briar Corp., 871 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994) (false impression/harmless error considerations in evidentiary rulings)