Supreme Court of Texas Blog: Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court

No. 13-0435
TAMES

CITY OF HOUSTON v. JAMES & ELIZABETH CARLSON, ET AL.

Oral argument was held on September 18, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on December 19, 2014. It then denied rehearing on January 30, 2015 File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 2 articles about this case.

June 16, 2014

Three opinions, one grant [Jun. 13, 2014]

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 18 other cases.

The Court has issued opinions:

June 11, 2014

Seven opinions and two grants [June 6, 2014]

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 8 other cases.

Opinions

December 19, 2014

Brown
Hecht
Green
Johnson
Willett
Guzman
Lehrmann
Boyd
Devine

Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court. PDF

Willett
Devine

Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Devine joined. PDF

 

Court of Appeals

Appellate District:14th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Reverse & Remand
COA Docket No.:14-12-00099-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Martha Hill Jamison

Trial Court

Trial Court:County Civil Court at Law No 1
County:Harris
Trial Judge:Honorable Debra Ibarra Mayfield
Trial Docket:973,590

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2015-02-11 Case Stored  
2015-02-06 Mandate issued  
2015-01-30 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed Denied
2014-12-30 Motion for Rehearing  
2014-12-19 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2014-12-19 Concurring Opinion issued.   Issued
2014-12-19 Opinion issued   Reversed court of appeals' judgment and dismiss for want of jurisdiction
  This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between October 1, 2014 and December 19, 2014.  
2014-10-01 Post submission brief filed (Petitioner)  
2014-09-26 Post submission brief filed (Respondent)  
2014-09-24 Post submission brief filed (Petitioner)  
2014-09-18 Oral argument  
2014-08-13 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2014-08-12 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
  This case was waiting for oral argument between June 13, 2014 and August 12, 2014.  
2014-06-13 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
2014-06-06 Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
2014-06-06 Petition for Review granted
2014-05-05 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2014-04-03 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2014-04-03 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2014-03-20 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2014-03-07 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2014-03-07 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2014-02-05 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2014-01-22 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2014-01-22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2013-12-20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2013-12-20 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2013-12-03 Case Record Filed  
2013-11-25 Record Requested in Petition for Review
2013-11-22 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2013-10-28 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
2013-10-15 Motion to Extend Time to File Reply filed  
2013-10-15 MET to file reply disposed of   Filing granted
2013-09-27 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2013-09-09 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed   Filing granted
2013-09-09 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
2013-08-16 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2013-07-16 Case forwarded to Court
2013-07-11 Response Waiver filed  
2013-07-01 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  
2013-06-14 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
2013-06-14 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
Cody, Sean
Mr. Sean Cody
Intervenor
City of Houston
Ms. Judith Lee Ramsey
Mr. David M. Feldman
Ms. Hope E. Hammill-Reh
Mr. John B. Wallace
Ms. Lynette Fons
Petitioner
Carlson, James
Mr. William C. Ferebee
Mr. Robert G. Miller
Respondent
 

When does city code enforcement raise a takings issue?

The City of Houston ordered the owners of a condominium to vacate until they repaired the units to meet city code. In a separate suit, the City was found to have violated the owners' due process rights. In this suit, the owners sued the City for a regulatory taking. The court of appeals agreed that the property owners had a valid claim that could proceed.

The City presents two issues:

  1. Can an invalid order to vacate a condominium be a taking, even without some actual damage or use of the property in question?

  2. Does the order in this case represent the kind of "public use" that constitute a taking or is it instead what the City calls "a nonpublic, noncompensatory use of a governmental entity’s police powers"?

...
...