Skip to content

Condemnation & Eminent Domain

Experience Highlights

  • Jury verdict in 2018 for $28.9 million, 2,223% above State’s offer of $1.3 million in a partial takings case for the Grand Parkway; the State took 40 acres out of a 613 acre tract being developed as a residential subdivision in Harris County, Texas, resulting in development changes yielding a lower value; this is believed to be the largest jury verdict for a property owner in a condemnation case ever in the State of Texas (The Texas Lawbook, February 7, 2018); the State appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the property owner; subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review

  • Jury verdict of $1.95 million, 1,005% above County’s First Offer – Lead counsel in a jury trial involving a partial taking of property developed and operated by a trucking company in Houston, Texas, which was condemned for Harris County’s Hardy Toll Road Extension Project; the trial resulted in a final judgment of $2.2 million on an original offer of $177,000; Harris County voluntarily dismissed its appeal

  • Jury verdict in 2017 for $11.5 million, 426% above State’s offer of $2.7 million –in a partial takings case for the Grand Parkway for the owner of retail pad sites in front of a big-box shopping center in Montgomery County, Texas; the State appealed and then dismissed its appeal

  • Jury verdict of $6.1 million, a 283% increase in Compensation to Client – Lead counsel in a jury trial resulting in a judgment for a large grocery company related to the State’s condemnation of a part of the client’s retail development for construction of the Grand Parkway in Montgomery County, Texas; the trial resulted in a final judgment of $6.3 million on an original offer of $1.2 million

  • 2016 Combined Jury verdicts of $19.4 million, 292% above State’s Combined Initial Offer – Combined jury trial verdicts for 100% of the compensation sought in single consolidated trial involving two commercial reserve parcels owned by the same entity taken for the Grand Parkway in Harris County, Texas; the Judgment was affirmed by the Houston 1st Court of Appeals in State v. Gleannloch Commercial Development, LP, 585 S.W.3d 509 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.], pet. denied)

  • Jury verdict of $13.2 million, 367% above State’s Compensation Offer – Jury trial verdict 40% above the property owner’s own appraisal value; the client was the owner/developer of the commercial reserves fronting a large master-planned residential development, portions of which were taken  for the Grand Parkway in Harris County, Texas; the Judgment was affirmed by the Houston 14th Court of Appeals in State v. Gleannloch Commercial Development, LP, 2017 WL 6559745 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 8, 2018, pet. denied)

  • Jury verdict of $11.6 million, an increase of 351% above the County’s trial appraisal – Jury trial verdict equivalent to compensation sought by property owners at trial for the taking of a 42-acre tract for a detention pond in Harris County.  The verdict was affirmed by the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the County’s petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court was denied

  • Settlement for a major fast food restaurant owner against the State, resulting in a final judgment of $2.2 million where no compensation was initially offered by the State

  • Settlement for a property owner in a partial taking by the state to widen West Loop 610 North, resulting in a final judgment of $2.9 million on an initial offer of zero

  • Settlement for a mall owner in a consolidated case following the partial taking by the State to widen U.S. 290, resulting in a final judgment of $32.0 million, an increase of 3,191% above the State’s offer of $972,000

  • Settlement for a major chain department store owner in a consolidated case following the partial taking by the State to widen U.S. 290, resulting in a final judgment of $31 million, an increase of 276% above the initial offer of $8.2 million

  • 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 final judgment of $8.7 million on an initial offer of $5.4 million

  • Jury verdict 215% above the State’s offer for the owner of a shopping center in the State’s partial taking to widen the Katy Freeway, resulting in a judgment of $9.5 million on an original offer of $4.4 million; the State appealed and then dismissed its appeal

  • 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 verdict 400% above the United States’ first offer 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 final judgment of $2 million, a 400% increase over the United State’s initial offer of $300,000

  • Bench trial for a fast food owner in partial taking, resulting in a net recovery to the client of $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 involving lost parking, resulting in a final judgment of $6.3 million, with no offer of compensation by State

  • Settlement for a property owner operating a private school in a partial taking case, resulting in a final judgment of $5.3 million on the State’s offer of $700,000

  • Settlement for a property owner against a pipeline company, after a temporary injunction hearing, resulting in a judgment $3 million, with no offer of compensation by the pipeline company

  • Settlement for the owner of an automobile dealership for taking of a strip of land by the State, resulting in a judgment of $1.33 million, a 1,272% increase on an original offer of $105,000