Highway 205 Farms, Ltd. and Maurice E. Moore, Jr. v. City of Dallas, 14-0917

This is an eminent domain proceeding in which the City of Dallas filed a Statement in Condemnation in Kaufman County to acquire property for a water pipeline project.
Special commissioners were appointed; their hearing was scheduled for May 8, 2013, but a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution was filed March 7, 2013.
The trial court dismissed the administrative proceeding for want of prosecution on April 17, 2013, before the commissioners could hold their hearing.
The City moved to reinstate arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss during the administrative phase; the motion to reinstate was denied June 21, 2013.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court had no jurisdiction to dismiss during the administrative phase, granted mandamus to reinstate, but dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Reinstatement occurred on August 4, 2014; the special commissioners later issued an award on January 21, 2015; objections were filed and the award was deposited, with trial set, rendering the dispute moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was an appealable judgment to review	Highway 205 Farms argued petition merited review of the dismissal.	City argued the dismissal fell in administrative phase; no appealable judgment existed.	No appealable judgment; petition denied for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the appeal is moot	Discretionary relief remains possible if merits reviewed.	Proceedings became a lawsuit after a commissioners’ award and objections, mooting the mootness issue.	Appeal is moot; controversy exists no longer.
Whether the county court had authority to dismiss during the administrative phase	County court had inherent power to control its docket, including dismissal for want of prosecution.	Administrative phase is not a civil case; court lacks power to dismiss during this phase.	County court had no inherent authority to dismiss in the administrative phase.
Whether Property Code provisions authorize dismissal during administrative phase	Petitioners rely on §21.019 to allow dismissal; owner could seek judicial denial.	§21.019 applies in the judicial phase; not during administrative proceedings.	Statute does not authorize dismissal during administrative phase.
Whether Rule 165a applies to the administrative proceeding	Rule 165a could govern dismissal for want of prosecution.	Rule 165a does not apply to administrative eminent-domain proceedings until objections are filed.	Rule 165a does not apply in the administrative phase.

Amason v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 682 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1984) (administrative nature of early eminent-domain proceedings; two-part process)
Bevil v. Johnson, 307 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. 1957) (inherent power in civil lawsuits; limitations in condemnation context)
Pearson v. State, 315 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. 1958) (appellate jurisdiction linked to timely objections; two-step process)
Gulf Energy Pipeline Co. v. Garcia, 884 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994) (administrative phase limitations; court cannot reset hearings during administrative phase)
Dickey v. City of Houston, 501 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. 1973) (two-phase eminent-domain procedure; dismissal during administrative phase)