Richard M. Young, Jr. A/K/A Richard Young v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, John Silovsky as Wildlife Division Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the State of Texas
15-24-00052-CV
Tex. App.Jun 24, 2025Background
- Richard Young, a licensed breeder of whitetail deer in Texas, sued the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) claiming that TPWD’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional taking (inverse condemnation) of his land, business, and breeder deer, without due process or compensation.
- Young alleges TPWD’s measures to control Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) led to significant losses for him and violated his property rights.
- The trial court dismissed Young’s inverse condemnation claims on jurisdictional grounds, and the Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and refused to allow Young to amend his petition.
- Young filed a motion for panel rehearing, arguing that (1) the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over eminent domain-related claims, (2) the court erred by relying on his original, instead of amended, petition, and (3) he should have been afforded an opportunity to amend his live petition to provide additional jurisdictional facts.
- Young contends his claims fall within the statutory exemption for “proceedings related to eminent domain,” meaning the appeal should have gone to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, not the Fifteenth Court in Austin.
- He further argues the transfer of his case and the court’s actions violated Texas constitutional protections against retroactive laws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Court’s Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over eminent domain/inverse condemnation | Fifteenth Court lacks jurisdiction per statute; appeal belongs in county court | Court has exclusive jurisdiction | Affirmed jurisdiction, denied transfer |
| Reliance on original vs. amended petition | Court relied on outdated petition, ignoring substantive new allegations | Sufficient basis regardless | Did not consider error reversible |
| Right to amend petition | Should be allowed to amend pleadings to allege facts supporting jurisdiction | Pleading defect is incurable | Denied remand or amendment |
| Sovereign immunity | Claims not barred based on established law for takings without compensation | Immunity applies to TPWD | Affirmed trial court’s dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Antonio v. Grandjean, 91 Tex. 430, 41 S.W. 477 (Tex. 1897) (discusses the meaning and application of “eminent domain” under Texas law)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Self, 690 S.W.3d 12 (Tex. 2024) (explains inverse condemnation and compensation for takings)
- Roark v. Allen, 633 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1982) (petitions construed liberally in favor of pleader if no special exceptions filed)
- City of Waco v. Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2009) (plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to amend if jurisdictional pleading is insufficient)