Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 20 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2026: Nationwide: Energy Transition; Energy: …
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026 • 3-minute read
Partner
Condemnation & Eminent Domain
Chambers USA, 2021–2026
George is Co-Practice Group Leader of V&E’s Condemnation and Land Use Litigation practice group. Selected as Best Lawyers of America’s Houston Eminent Domain Lawyer of the Year for 2019, George’s trial practice is principally focused on the representation of private property owners involved in eminent domain lawsuits wherein the State, counties, municipalities, and other government authorities seek to acquire his clients’ property. He has extensive first chair jury trial experience confirmed by his invited membership in the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). George has represented owners of properties of all types, including retail, commercial, industrial, and residential properties. George has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the publications Best Lawyers in America and by Texas Super Lawyers for his extensive experience in Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law.
Lead Counsel representing property owner in condemnation, securing a Special Commissioners’ Award of $34.2 million, an increase of 109% over Harris County Flood Control District’s (“HCFCD”) initial offer of $16.4 million; the HCFCD was acquiring approximately 187 acres of a 276 acre tract for a regional detention facility; HCFCD did not appeal the award, which then became a Final Judgment
2022 Settlement for $5.1 million, an increase of 439% over the initial offer of $946,000, for a car dealership owner in Lewisville, Texas involving a partial taking wherein the State was taking a substantial portion of a dealership’s display parking for the widening of Interstate 35E north of Dallas
Lead Counsel representing large industrial developer in Liberty County, Texas in securing a settlement of $13 million, an increase of 94% over the Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”) initial offer of $6,969,400, for the partial acquisition of the owner’s property for construction of segment I-1 of the Grand Parkway in Dayton, Texas; this settlement was achieved quickly, without the matter having to go into litigation
Jury verdict of $12.2 million, 281% above State’s First Offer – Lead counsel in a jury trial resulting in a Judgment in favor of the owner of a 52.75 acre tract of land in the Klein area of Northwest Houston that was taken by the State of Texas for construction of a portion of the Grand Parkway and an associated detention pond; the trial resulted in a final judgment of $12.4 million on an original offer of $3.2 million; the State did not appeal the verdict
Jury verdict of $9.25 million, 110% above State’s Offer – Lead counsel in a jury trial resulting in a judgment in favor of the owner of a refrigerated warehouse facility in Houston, Texas that was condemned for the State’s US 290/610 Expansion Project; the trial resulted in a final judgment of $10.36 million compared to the State’s offer of $4.40 million; the State did not appeal the verdict
Jury verdict of $1.95 million, 1,005% above County’s First Offer, in a case 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 of $11.5 million, 292% above State’s First Offer – Lead counsel in a jury trial resulting in a judgment in favor of the developer of a large anchored retail development in Montgomery County, Texas, a part of which was taken for construction of the Grand Parkway; the property taken by the State was planned for development as pad sites fronting a big-box retail store; the State appealed the trial verdict and the parties settled shortly after the appeal was filed, for $11.3 million, despite the State’s original offer being only $2.94 million
Jury verdict of $6.1 million, a 283% increase in Compensation to Client –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
Combined Jury verdicts of $19.4 million, a 292% increase in compensation to client – Combined jury trial verdicts for 100% of the compensation sought in a consolidated trial of two cases involving commercial reserve parcels owned by the same entity taken for the Grand Parkway in Harris County, Texas; the Final Judgment, which totaled $20.1 million, was affirmed by the Houston 1st Court of Appeals in State v. Gleannloch Commercial Development, LP, 2018 WL 4134926 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2018, 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 $922K, 367% above State’s Compensation Estimate – Lead counsel in a jury trial resulting in a judgment in favor of a family who owned a tract of vacant land, a part of which was taken for a detention pond associated with the widening of FM 529 in the Katy, Texas area; the trial resulted in a final judgment for the family totaling $950K, on an original offer of $360K; the jury verdict was affirmed on appeal; see State v. Chana, 464 S.W.3d 769 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.)
Lead counsel in a jury trial for the acquisition of property needed by an electric utility client for a transmission line project in Wise County, Texas
Lead counsel for the acquisition of approximately 180 miles of right-of-way in multiple counties in North Texas needed by a client for CREZ transmission line projects
Lead counsel for the acquisition of approximately 300 miles of right-of-way in multiple counties in the panhandle region of Texas needed by client for CREZ transmission line projects
Lead counsel resulting in a favorable jury verdict in which the jury awarded the client 100% of the amount sought on behalf of a family who owned commercial property on I-45 in Montgomery County, which was condemned by the City of Shenandoah
Co-counsel for a property owner in jury trial resulting in verdict in which the jury awarded the client 100% of the property owner’s estimate of compensation; the case involved the widening of I-10 and the resulting impact on a property improved with a Class A self-storage facility in Houston, Texas
Lead counsel for a property owner in a jury trial resulting in a favorable verdict for the owner of a retail shopping center that lost parking as a result of the widening I-10; the Judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Houston 14th Court of Appeals. See State of Texas v. Gaylor Investment Trust Partnership, et al., 322 S.W.3d 814 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.)
Lead counsel for a joint venture pipeline company in the acquisition of property needed for a new crude oil pipeline constructed across terminal/railroad property
Lead counsel for the acquisition of 25 miles of property for a canal project intended to provide an additional water supply source to the City of Houston and surrounding areas
Lead counsel for numerous property owners in settlements reached with the State of Texas related to the condemnation of their property for the expansion of several major freeways
Lead counsel for numerous property owners in settlements reached with Harris County related to the condemnation of their property for highway and road widening projects, toll road projects, and flood control projects
Lead counsel for the owner of property improved with a distribution center for a national restaurant chain resulting in a favorable verdict following a jury trial.
Co-counsel for a property owner in a jury trial resulting in a favorable verdict resulting from the condemnation of a portion of a property improved with big box retailer for the widening of S.H. 6 in Bryan, Texas.
Represented a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products as trial counsel in various counties throughout the State of Texas
Represented major building products manufacturer in a multiparty case involving property damage and product liability claims in combined construction/personal injury litigation resulting from the failure of a commercial building
Served as arbitrator in two AAA arbitration proceedings involving contract disputes and unfair trade practices claims
Education
Admissions
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 20 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2026: Nationwide: Energy Transition; Energy: …
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Best Lawyers in America (BL Rankings, LLC) has named 125 Vinson & Elkins lawyers in its “Best Lawyers” category in the 2026 edition. Additionally, 76 Vinson & Elkins attorneys have been named in the “Ones to Watch” category, which recognizes lawyers with 5–10 years’ experience. Some individuals are listed in more than one practice area, giving the firm a total of 305 rankings.
August 21, 2025
August 21, 2025 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 18 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2025: Nationwide: Energy: Oil & Gas (Regulatory & Litigation); Energy: Oil & Gas (Transactional); Energy Transition; Offshore Energy; Projects: Oil & Gas; Projects: Power & Renewables: Transactional New York: Bankruptcy/Restructuring: Highly Regarded Texas: Bankruptcy/Restructuring; Capital Markets: Debt & Equity; Corporate/M&A: The Elite; Environment: Mainly Transactional; Litigation: Securities; Real Estate; Real Estate: Zoning/Land Use; Tax; Technology: Corporate & Commercial Texas: Austin & Surrounds: Corporate/M&A Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth & Surrounds: Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Of the firm’s 167 individual lawyer rankings, 16 were newly added in 2025. Some lawyers are ranked in more than one category.
June 5, 2025
June 5, 2025 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters) Names 34 Vinson & Elkins Attorneys to 2024 Texas Super Lawyers List; 16 to Rising Stars
September 19, 2024
September 19, 2024 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 19 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2024: Nationwide: Energy: Oil & Gas (Regulatory & Litigation); Energy: Oil & Gas (Transactional); Energy Transition; Offshore Energy; Projects: Oil & Gas; Projects: Power & Renewables: Transactional New York: Bankruptcy/Restructuring: Highly Regarded; Corporate M&A: Takeover Defense Texas: Austin & Surrounds: Corporate/M&A; Bankruptcy/Restructuring; Dallas, Fort Worth & Surrounds: Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation; Capital Markets: Debt & Equity; Corporate/M&A: The Elite; Environment: Mainly Transactional; Litigation: Securities; Real Estate; Real Estate: Zoning/Land Use; Tax; Technology: Corporate & Commercial Of the firm’s 163 individual lawyer rankings, 22 were newly added in 2024. Some lawyers are ranked in more than one category.
June 6, 2024
June 6, 2024 • 3-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.