331 S.W.3d 91
Tex. App.2010Background
- Oncor sought to condemn an easement for an electric transmission line crossing a rail corridor owned by DART and The T, after PUC approved the line.
- DART and The T are government entities (regional transportation authorities) and thus potentially immune from suit.
- Oncor filed eminent-domain proceedings; DART and The T filed special appearances/pleas to the jurisdiction.
- Trial court denied the plea; Oncor sought to condemn and obtain compensation; appellate court was asked to reverse and dismiss.
- Court on rehearing reversed the denial of the plea, held immunity barred the suit, and dismissed with prejudice.
- The issue centered on whether the governmental-immunity doctrine is implicated in condemnations and whether immunity is waived by statute or preemption by PUC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does governmental immunity apply to eminent-domain condemnation? | Oncor argues immunity does not apply to condemnation actions. | DART/The T contend immunity bars such suits. | Immunity applies; case dismissed. |
| Has immunity been waived by the statutory grant to condemn? | Oncor asserts 181.004 waives immunity. | DART/The T argue no clear waiver. | No clear/unambiguous waiver; immunity not waived. |
| Is PUC regulation preemptive or does it nullify immunity defenses? | Oncor argues PUC preempts immunity. | DART/The T contend no preemption of immunity by PURA. | PUC regulation does not preempt immunity; immunity defenses remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (sovereign immunity limits suits for money damages; declaratory acts involve immunity guidance)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (de novo review of jurisdictional challenges)
- Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (Taylor factors for determining clear/unambiguous waiver of immunity)
- Montgomery County v. 262 S.W.3d 439, 262 S.W.3d 439 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008) (relevant to waiver when condemning public land; immunity considerations)
- Humble Pipe Line Co. v. State, 2 S.W.2d 1018 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1928) (longstanding right of utilities to condemn public lands; precedential context for immunity discussion)
- Fort Worth & W. R.R. v. Enbridge Gathering, 298 S.W.3d 392 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009) (discussed in context of condemnation rights under utilities code; not dispositive on immunity)