Property owner testimony about value; five new grants [Dec. 14, 2012]
Sunday, December 16th, 2012 by · Add a Comment
With this week’s orders, the Texas Supreme Court issued one opinion and granted review in five cases for oral argument.
The Court also denied the motion for rehearing in IN RE NESTLE USA, INC., No. 12-0518
, bringing that challenge to the franchise tax to a close.
Property owners are competent to testify to value, but their testimony cannot be mere conclusion
This appeal involved a nuisance claim for odors emanating from a gas compressor station.
The key holding is that the Property Owner Rule does not permit conclusory evidence of market value:
Because property owner testimony is the functional equivalent of expert testimony, it must be judged by the same standards. Thus, as with expert testimony, property valuations may not be based solely on a property owner’s ipse dixit. An owner may not simply echo the phrase “market value” and state a number to substantiate his diminished value claim; he must provide the factual basis on which his opinion rests.
The Court noted that a property owner has many resources today to draw upon:
Evidence of price paid, nearby sales, tax valuations, appraisals, online resources, and any other relevant factors may be offered to support the claim. But the valuation must be substantiated; a naked assertion of “market value” is not enough.
MONCRIEF OIL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. OAO GAZPROM, GAZPROM EXPORT, LLC AND GAZPROM MARKETING & TRADING, LTD., No. 11-0195
: Whether Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over Gazprom for alleged tortious interference with an existing joint venture.
HOMER MERRIMAN v. XTO ENERGY, INC., No. 11-0494
: What does the surface owner of property need to establish in order to invoke the “accommodation doctrine” to prevent the mineral rights holder from drilling in a certain location?
EL PASO COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A R.E. THOMASON GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL. v. TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION AND THOMAS SUEHS, EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONER, No. 11-0830
: The Court is being asked to interpret and enforce the mandate from its previous decision in this case about reimbursement rates.
The previous decision was EL PASO HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A R.E. THOMASON GENERAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION AND DON GILBERT, COMMISSIONER, No. 05-0372
BENNY P. PHILLIPS, M.D. v. DALE BRAMLETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKI BRAMLETT, DECEASED..., No. 12-0257
: This appeal also involves issues growing out of the mandate in a previous case.
The previous appeal was BENNY P. PHILLIPS, M.D. v. DALE BRAMLETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKI BRAMLETT, DECEASED..., No. 07-0522
IN RE JOHN W. COOK; MARC COOK; MARC BUMBERA; SUN DEVELOPMENT, L.L.P.; SD GP, L.L.C.; PETROLEUM WHOLESALE..., No. 12-0308
: The Civil Practice and Remedies Code has a mandatory venue provision for injunctive relief in the defendant’s domicile. The DTPA has a provision making venue in Travis County permissive. Which venue provision controls when the Attorney General seeks primarily injunctive relief against a defendant?
Tags: Order Lists