No. 13-0435
Click for Official Page
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
Tracking 2 articles about this case.
June 16, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 18 other cases.
June 11, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 8 other cases.
| 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: | County Civil Court at Law No 1 |
| County: | Harris |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Debra Ibarra Mayfield |
| Trial Docket: | 973,590 |
| 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 | Opinion issued | Reversed court of appeals' judgment and dismiss for want of jurisdiction | |
| 2014-12-19 | Concurring Opinion issued. | Issued | |
| 2014-12-19 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 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 granted | ||
| 2014-06-06 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-05-05 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-04-03 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-04-03 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 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 to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-01-22 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-12-20 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-12-20 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 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 filed | ||
| 2013-06-14 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cody, Sean |
|
Intervenor | |||||
| City of Houston |
|
Petitioner | |||||
| Carlson, James |
|
Respondent |
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:
Can an invalid order to vacate a condominium be a taking, even without some actual damage or use of the property in question?
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"?
