X

Reset Password

Username:

Change Password

Old Password:
New Password:
We have completed your request.

Condemnation & Eminent Domain

Vinson & Elkins’ Condemnation practice has successfully represented property owners and governmental entities in state and federal eminent domain cases for a combined 62 years. Experienced in every type of condemnation dispute, our lawyers help property owners achieve their objective, whether it be maximizing compensation or challenging the government’s right to take the property, at a competitive, results-based fee.

Widespread Scope

V&E has tried and won numerous precedent-setting condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings cases in state and federal courts. These involve takings for all types of projects, including highways, rail, drainage and flood control projects, parks, schools, sports arenas, energy and utility plants, strategic petroleum reserves, electric transmission lines, telecommunications lines, and pipelines. We work to protect properties of all sizes and uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, educational, religious, and vacant land. In addition to representing property owners, we also represent entities with the power of eminent domain, including pipeline and utility companies, among others. 

Advocacy & Strategy

Our team assists clients at all stages of a condemnation case, including pre-condemnation planning, strategy, negotiations, mediations, jury trials, and appeals. Our lawyers are skilled advocates who regularly work with real estate appraisers, land planners, engineers, real estate brokers, and other land use professionals to build effective arguments and maximize the property owner’s compensation at both the trial and appellate levels.

Additional Information

Practice Highlights

  • Settlement for a major fast food restaurant owner against the state, resulting in net recovery of $1.4 million with no offer of compensation by the state (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for a property owner in a partial taking by the state to widen West Loop 610 North, resulting in a net recovery of $1.9 million on an original offer of zero (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for a mall owner in partial taking by the state to widen U.S. 290, resulting in a net recovery of $21 million, on an original offer of $1 million (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for a major chain department store owner in partial taking by the state to widen U.S. 290, resulting in a net recovery of $23 million on an original offer of $9 million (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for a property owner in a whole taking by the state to widen West Loop 610 North, resulting in a net recovery of $12.4 million on an original offer of $7.3 million (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for a property owner in a whole taking by the state to widen West Loop 610 North, resulting in a net recovery of $7.5 million on an original offer of $5.4 million (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Jury trial for the owner of a shopping center in the state’s partial taking to widen the Katy Freeway, resulting in a net recovery of $8.2 million on an original offer of $4.4 million (trial counsel, monetary damages)
  • Jury trial for the owner of a private mini storage facility in the state’s partial taking to widen the Katy Freeway, resulting in a net recovery of $5.3 million on an original offer of $2.2 million (trial counsel, monetary damages)
  • Jury trial for the owner of an office building in the state’s taking of a strip of land and closing of a driveway, resulting in net recovery to the client of $2 million, on an original offer by the state of $90,000 (trial counsel, monetary damages)
  • Jury trial for ranch owners for taking of a dune preserve for expansion of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park by U.S. Department of Interior, resulting in a net recovery to the client of $900,000, on an original offer of $300,000 (trial counsel, monetary damages)
  • Bench trial for a fast food owner in partial taking, resulting in a net recovery to the client of more than $1 million, on an original offer by the state of $140,000
  • Settlement for a property owner operating grocery store in a partial taking case, resulting in a net recovery to the client of $4.25 million, with no offer of compensation by state (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for a property owner operating a private school in a partial taking case, resulting in a net recovery to the client of $3.8 million on the state’s original offer of $700,000 (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for a property owner against a pipeline company, after a temporary injunction hearing, resulting in a net recovery to the client of $2 million, with no offer of compensation by the pipeline company (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
  • Settlement for the owner of an automobile dealership for taking of a strip of land by the state, resulting in a net recovery to the client of $1 million, on an original offer of $105,000 (settlement counsel, monetary damages)