Texas Transportation Commission and Ted Houghton, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Transportation Commission v. City of Jersey Village
14-14-00823-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 9, 2015Background
- Appellants TTC and Houghton appeal from a Harris County 165th District Court ruling.
- City of Jersey Village filed suit seeking declaratory relief and monetary relief related to reimbursement for replacement public utility easements.
- Dispute centers on §203.092 relocation/reimbursement rules and whether replacement easements are compensable.
- City submitted Utility Agreement U14331; Grizzard easement is identified as a potential reimbursable private easement but not submitted for U14331.
- TxDOT argues sovereign immunity bars declaratory judgments, ultra vires claims, and attorney’s fees; City seeks to force new/modified contracts for Segment 6 and 7.
- Court addresses whether City has compensable property interests and if §203.092 waives immunity; also discusses ripeness for Segment 7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Jersey Village asserts UDJA allows declarations against state actors | TxDOT/State argues immunity blocks general declaratory relief and only ultra vires or statutory-validity challenges survive | Sovereign immunity bars the declaratory claims |
| Whether ultra vires claims against the TTC and Houghton are barred | City contends TTC and Houghton acted beyond authority under §203.092 | State argues such claims are barred; TTC immune; Houghton protected by §203.092 strict construction | Ultra vires claims barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether §203.092 supports reimbursement for replacement easements | City asserts §203.092 requires reimbursement for replacement easements | State contends plain language excludes replacement easements and compensation is not for such | §203.092 does not require reimbursement for replacement easements |
| Whether the Article I, Section 17 takings claim is barred | City argues inverse condemnation or takings claim invalidly withheld | State maintains sovereign immunity and no compensable property interest; inverse condemnation not proper | Takings claim barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether City’s Segment 7 claims are ripe | City seeks relief for Segment 7; argues ongoing project impacts | TxDOT contends lack of ripeness requires dismissal | Claims regarding Segment 7 are not ripe/are not properly before court |
Key Cases Cited
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ( UDJA does not waive immunity; ultra vires and statutory validity differ)
- Texas Lottery Comm’n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2010) (clarifies distinction between ultra vires and statutory validity in UDJA context)
- Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Sawyer Trust, 354 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2011) ( UDJA waiver limited to §37.006(b), no general right to declaratory relief against state)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transportation v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) ( UDJA and immunity; ultra vires framework; merits considered on appeal)
- State v. City of Austin, 331 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. 1960) (distinguishes attribution of replacement easements to relocation; older precedent cited)
- Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., 591 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1979) ( eminent domain and public/private easement considerations in compensation)