In re Lazy W District No. 1
493 S.W.3d 538
Tex.2016Background
- Tarrant Regional Water District (condemnor) sought to condemn an underground pipeline easement across 11.623 acres of Lazy W Ranch, owned by Lazy W District No. 1 (condemnee), after a failed purchase offer.
- The district court, the day after the condemnation petition was filed, appointed three special commissioners to value the easement without notice to the Lazy W.
- Lazy W filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity and asked the court to vacate the commissioners’ appointment and dismiss the petition; the trial court vacated the appointment and declined to appoint commissioners until it ruled on immunity.
- The court of appeals granted mandamus directing the trial court to appoint commissioners and to defer the immunity issue until after the commissioners’ award and a timely objection.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review and held that trial courts retain the authority to determine their subject-matter jurisdiction (including immunity) before appointing special commissioners and did not abuse discretion in deciding to rule on immunity early; the court declined to decide whether governmental entities are immune from condemnation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must defer ruling on a condemnee's plea of governmental immunity until after special commissioners issue an award | Lazy W: court must decide immunity before appointing commissioners to avoid wasting commissioners' time | Water Dist.: Section 21.014 mandates appointment of commissioners upon filing and bars other judicial action until award | Court: Trial courts always may determine their jurisdiction; ruling on immunity before appointing commissioners is permissible and trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether §21.014’s “shall appoint” is mandatory and restricts any other court action after filing | Lazy W: statute does not strip the court of jurisdiction to decide immunity | Water Dist.: “shall” requires appointment and limits court action to appointing commissioners until award | Court: §21.014 is mandatory but not jurisdictionally restrictive; it does not prohibit courts from deciding jurisdictional challenges |
| Whether the court of appeals erred by granting mandamus directing appointment of commissioners | Lazy W: mandamus was improper because trial court may resolve jurisdiction first | Water Dist.: mandamus proper because trial court lacked authority to refuse appointment | Court: Court of appeals abused its discretion; mandamus vacated unless it complies with Supreme Court order |
| Whether the Supreme Court decides if governmental entities are immune from condemnation suits | Lazy W: immunity applies and should bar proceeding | Water Dist.: immunity uncertain; proceed with condemnation process | Court: Declined to decide immunity question; remanded to allow trial court to address merits if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarrant Cty. Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. One v. Wilson, 358 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. 1962) (condemnation original proceeding precedent)
- Pearson v. State, 315 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. 1958) (describing condemnation as administrative until commissioners' decision)
- Amason v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co., 682 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1984) (two-part condemnation procedure; limited judicial interference with commissioners)
- Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. 2004) (special commissioners’ proceedings are administrative and their determinations are ordinarily excluded from later judicial review)
- Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (courts must ascertain subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2012) (assumption regarding governmental immunity in condemnation context)