State v. Luby's Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC, 531 S.W.3d 810

Texas condemned a strip of Luby’s cafeteria parking for a U.S. 290 widening project; the taking made the existing cafeteria noncompliant with local parking rules and effectively valueless in its current form.
Luby’s planned to demolish and rebuild a smaller facility on-site and sought compensation for (a) the diminution in market value of the remainder and (b) lost profits during a 12‑month demolition/rebuild closure ($480,000).
Parties’ valuation experts disagreed: Luby’s used the cost approach and included about $444,000 for kitchen equipment as fixtures; the State’s expert used a weighted mix (sales-comparison and income approaches) and valued the compensable taking at $1,334,183 (including some fixtures like a walk‑in freezer).
Jury awarded $1,334,183 for the condemnation claim (matching the State’s valuation) and $480,000 for lost profits.
The State appealed the lost‑profits award as an impermissible double recovery; Luby’s cross‑appealed the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the legal definition of fixtures/constructive fixtures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an independent award of lost profits is allowable where part of land is taken and the owner will be temporarily closed while rebuilding	Luby’s: Whataburger permits lost‑profits awards when taking causes a material and substantial interference (here demolition/closure qualifies)	State: Where market‑value award (based on sales‑comparison and income approaches) already reflects profit‑generating capacity, awarding lost profits is double recovery	Court: Reversed lost‑profits award as double recovery because jury’s market‑value award incorporated income/profitability (Whataburger distinguished)
Whether trial court erred by admitting evidence of lost profits	Luby’s: Evidence of lost profits was admissible to support recovery	State: Admission was erroneous	Court: Having reversed the award, declined to decide (moot)
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing Luby’s requested jury question/instruction defining fixtures and constructive fixtures	Luby’s: Instruction was reasonably necessary to guide jury to compensate for kitchen equipment as fixtures	State: Refusal preserved proper neutrality and avoided commenting on weight of evidence	Court: No abuse of discretion; broad market‑value question and definition sufficed; failure to define "fixtures" was not reversible error

County of Bexar v. Santikos, 144 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. 2004) (delineates measure of compensation for part takings and remainder damages)
State v. Cent. Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) (explains using income evidence either to show access interference or to support market‑value adjustment, not as standalone profit awards)
City of Austin v. Ave. Corp., 704 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. 1986) (defines "material and substantial interference" categories allowing lost‑profits recovery)
State v. Whataburger, 60 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (permitted lost‑profits award where market‑value valuation did not incorporate profitability because experts used cost approach)
State v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. 2015) (articulates fixture test: annexation, adaptation, and intention; intention is preeminent)