LaSalle Pipeline, LP v. Donnell Lands, L.P.
336 S.W.3d 306
Tex. App.2011Background
- LaSalle Pipeline, LP sought temporary workspace easements and permanent right-of-way on two Donnell Lands L.P. tracts in McMullen County for a natural gas pipeline.
- Special commissioners awarded $226,055; LaSalle deposited this amount; Donnell Lands objected and the issue went to a jury.
- Jury awarded Donnell Lands $658,689, including $19,206 for temporary workspace easements and $604,950 for diminution in value to the remainder; permanent easement damages were $34,533.
- Trial court denied LaSalle’s motions and rendered judgment reflecting the commissioners’ award balance after crediting the jury verdict.
- LaSalle appeals arguing insufficient evidence for the temporary easement damages and the diminution in value, and challenges to venire members’ causes.
- The court held the evidence supports the diminution in value to the remainder and sustains some of the temporary workspace easement damages, but reduces the temporary easement award to reflect $6,402.00 as fair rental value; the rest of the judgment is affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of temporary easement damages | McCormick/Donnell support $19,206; Bethel sole fair rental value $6,402 | Bethel’s $6,402.00 is sole competent rental value; jury validly awarded | Evidence supports reduction to $6,402.00 for temporary easements |
| Sufficiency of diminution in value to remainder | McCormick proves $843,490; jury should mirror | Valuation range supports $604,950; not error to below expert | Sufficient evidence supports $604,950 as diminution in value |
| Challenges for cause to venire members | Two venire members were biased as a matter of law | Bias shown but not conclusively; could be impartial | Trial court did not err in denying challenges for cause |
| Jury's damages range and blending of evidence | Jury had two options; must pick McCormick’s or Bethel’s figures | Jury could award within the evidence range; blending allowed | Jury’s award within range; no reversible error; Callejo considerations weighed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex.2005) (legal sufficiency standard for reviewing evidence)
- Exxon Corp. v. Garza, 981 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998) (probative evidence must support verdict)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex.1998) (reliability and analysis in expert testimony; standard for appraisal)
- Callejo v. Brazos Elec. Power Coop., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.1988) (before-after valuation; jurors not to blend values outside evidence)
- Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex.2009) (reliability of expert testimony; basis for opinion must be supported)
- Zwahr v. Exxon Pipeline Co., 88 S.W.3d 623 (Tex.2002) (before-after measure of damages in condemnation)
- Sharboneau (Estate of), 48 S.W.3d 177 (Tex.2001) (comparable sales; applicability of market value)