State v. YS & LS & LS Partnership, Ltd.
13-15-00494-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 18, 2015Background
- The State filed an eminent-domain (condemnation) petition in Nueces County; special commissioners awarded $150,000, which the State objected to.
- Appellee YS & LS & LS Partnership, Ltd. filed a verified answer, plea in abatement, and a counterclaim alleging inverse condemnation—claiming the State intentionally damaged or took the property, with actual knowledge and that harm was substantially certain to occur.
- The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (plea to the jurisdiction), relying primarily on Westgate and arguing the counterclaim is barred by sovereign immunity; the State presented no evidentiary support with its plea.
- The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing and denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction.
- Appellee appeals (through its brief) asking this Court to affirm the trial court’s denial, arguing its pleadings sufficiently allege intent/bad faith and therefore fall within the Westgate exception to sovereign-immunity dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars appellee’s inverse condemnation counterclaim | Appellee contends its verified pleading alleges intentional acts/bad faith by the State causing a taking, which confers jurisdiction | State argues inverse-condemnation theory is not recognized against the State under Westgate and the pleadings fail to overcome sovereign immunity | Trial court denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction; appellee asks this court to affirm because pleading of intent/bad faith suffices at the jurisdictional stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Westgate, Ltd. v. State of Texas, 843 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. 1992) (recognized limits on inverse-condemnation claims but indicated exception may exist where government acts intentionally or in bad faith)
- General Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation, 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001) (elements required to plead an unlawful taking)
- Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Gragg, 151 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2004) (governmental intent to take exists when acts are known to cause identifiable harm or are substantially certain to cause harm)
- State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. 2007) (sovereign immunity does not bar takings-clause claims)
- State v. Brownlow, 319 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. 2010) (reaffirming that takings claims are not generally barred by sovereign immunity)
- Porretto v. Patterson, 251 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (pleading of intentional governmental acts sufficient to state takings claim)