City of Baytown v. Alan Schrock, 645 S.W.3d 174

Schrock (landlord) sued City of Baytown alleging the City’s denial of municipal utilities and imposition of a lien over a tenant’s unpaid bills damaged his rental property and amounted to a taking.
The City’s ordinance allowed denial of utilities and liens for unpaid service charges; Schrock had not filed a preemptive rental declaration that would have protected the property.
Schrock disputed the charges, declined to pay under protest, delayed seeking reinstatement of utilities, and left the property vacant and deteriorating; he owned many rental properties.
The Texas legislature forbids conditioning utility access on third‑party debts; the City conceded its ordinance violated state law, but the dispute proceeded on takings grounds.
The Court (per the lead opinion) held no federally cognizable taking occurred; Justice Young concurred in that judgment but wrote separately to emphasize state constitutional differences and reserve Texas‑law questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City’s denial of utilities and lien constituted a taking under the U.S. Constitution	Schrock: withholding utilities and placing a lien damaged/destroyed property amounting to a Fifth Amendment taking	City: actions did not rise to a federal taking	No federally cognizable taking; judgment for City affirmed
Whether Texas Takings Clause provides broader protection than the federal clause	Schrock: treated state clause as coextensive with federal law	City: treated claims identically; no separate Texas claim briefed	Not decided on the merits; Justice Young emphasizes Texas clause is textually broader and the question remains open
Whether plaintiff's failure to mitigate (e.g., file rental declaration, pay under protest, seek service reinstatement) affects causation or damages	Schrock: City’s actions proximately caused the property damage	City: Schrock’s omissions substantially contributed and could reduce or bar recovery	Court did not decide; concurring opinion signals plaintiff conduct may limit or defeat recovery and stresses need for causation/mitigation analysis
Whether courts may assume federal takings analysis applies verbatim to Texas takings claims	Schrock: (implicitly) treated both clauses identically in briefing	City: likewise relied on federal doctrine	Rejected as a default approach by Justice Young — litigants must brief state‑constitutional differences for the Court to address them

Jim Olive Photography v. Univ. of Houston, 624 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2021) (concurrence noting Texas Takings Clause can provide broader protection)
City of Houston v. Carlson, 451 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. 2014) (Texas takings jurisprudence discussed alongside federal law)
Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012) (proximate cause is essential in takings cases)
Travelers’ Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 76 S.W.2d 1007 (Tex. 1934) (interpretation of constitutional provision adoption)
Trinity & S. Ry. Co. v. Meadows, 11 S.W. 145 (Tex. 1889) (explaining inclusion of "damaged or destroyed" in Texas Constitution)
DuPuy v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. 1965) (historical discussion of Texas takings protection)
State v. Hale, 146 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. 1941) (government acts must be proximate cause of taking or damage)
Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. 1997) (landlord duty to mitigate by reasonable efforts to relet)
767 Third Ave. Assocs. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (lessor’s failure to mitigate barred regulatory‑takings recovery)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. King, 444 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. 1969) (ignorance of filing requirement does not excuse failure to comply)