Millwee-Jackson Joint Venture v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 350 S.W.3d 772

Background

Millwee purchased property near I-35 with an access easement in a floodplain; intent was to develop hotel or office building and require bridge over Turtle Creek.
City approved an action plan in 1985 requiring Millwee to build a bridge, Alamo Street, and related improvements, in exchange for access rights.
City later deleted Alamo Street from its master plan (1998); in 2002 DART began nearby work, creating embankments and fencing that Millwee contends restricted access.
City closed Alamo Street segment; DART construction allegedly blocked access, forcing trespass on adjacent property; Millwee claimed loss of safe, reasonable access.
Millwee asserted various claims: inverse condemnation, regulatory takings, nuisance, substantial impairment of access, declaratory judgments against DART/City, and injunctive relief; trial court granted several summary judgments/pleas to jurisdiction.
On rehearing, the court reverses several trial court rulings, addressing whether DART’s occupation, City’s actions, and access impairment amount to takings and related relief, and remands for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
DART’s physical occupation as taking	Millwee argues DART’s occupancy deprived property rights and constitutes a taking.	DART contends no taking since access was not denied and there was no complete deprivation.	Issue sustained; Millerwee prevails on taking due to physical occupation.
Regulatory takings claims barred by statute of limitations	Millwee contends regulatory taking claims not time-barred; earliest action in 1985 and 2002 events.	City argues limitations bar claims as untimely.	Issue sustained in favor of Millwee; regulatory takings claims not barred by limitations against City.
Injunctive relief against City	Millwee seeks injunction to prevent closure and ongoing interference with access.	City argues no irreparable harm or inadequate remedy at law; Section 65.015 limitations on injunctions apply.	Issue sustained; trial court erred in denying injunctive relief against City.
Nuisance claims against City and DART	Nuisance arising from intentional acts damaging property value and access.	Sovereign immunity bars nuisance claims absent waiver; no taking shown.	Issue sustained; nuisance claims can proceed where takings considerations exist; reversal on this point.
Acquisitory intent/investment-backed expectations contingent on impairment	Claims survived regardless of substantial impairment of access; actionable regardless of takings threshold.	Claims depend on showing impairment of access; cannot adjudicate separately.	Issue sustained; disposition of these claims not contingent on substantial impairment finding; remanded.

Key Cases Cited

Dawmar Partners, Ltd. v. City of San Antonio, 267 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. 2008) (threshold test for material impairment of access; not all access reductions are takings)
Bristol Hotel Asset Co. v. City of San Antonio, 293 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2009) (partial, temporary disruption not a compensable taking)
State v. Delany, 197 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2006) (highest and best use not required to assess impairment of access)
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (regulatory takings framework factors; Penn Central line of analysis)
Trail Enters., Inc. v. City of Houston, 957 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (ripeness/adverse possession timing for takings claims)
Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) (ripeness concept for competing interests in takings claims)
City of Dallas v. Blanton, 200 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (declaratory judgments cannot waive sovereign immunity)